HISTORY OF THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL 

CONVENTION OP 1889. 

Reprinted from Vol. Ill, State Historical Society 
























HISTORY OF THR STATH CONSTITUTIONAL 

CONVENTION OF 1889. 








HISTORY OF THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVEN¬ 
TION OF 1889. 

R. M. BLACK. 

The twenty-first anniversary of the birth of our state seems to be 
a fitting occasion at which to write the history of the convention 
which secured our statehood. While there is much of similarity in 
the constitutional conventions of the different states, yet each one 
lias some problems peculiar to itself. The twenty-one years of re¬ 
markable development of North Dakota is acceptable testimony to 
the fact that these problems were pretty well disposed of by the 
delegates that framed her organic law. The information has been 
gathered from the Journal and the Debates of the Convention, the 
Congressional records, the files of some of the newspapers of the 
time and other documents found at the capitol. But the most help¬ 
ful information has come from the lips of men who were active 
participants in the events of the convention. The outline map of 
the delegate districts of 1889 is produced from maps and records 
found in the offices in the capitol. 

SECURING THE ENABLING ACT. 

The movement toward statehood began in the early history of 
Dakota Territory. For sixteen years the problem of division with 
the question of admission to the Union was constantly in the minds 
of her own politicians, and the ambitions of this territory engaged 
the attention of the statesmen at the national capitol for more or 
less time- in each of fifteen sessions of congress. 

As early as 1870 the people of the territory began to feel that 
the interests of all the people would be better served by dividing 
the territory on an east and west line near the center of its area. 
The territorial legislature of 1871 adopted a memorial to congress 
asking that the territory be divided into two parts on the forty-sixth 
parallel of north latitude, and similar acts were adopted December 
31, 1872, December 19, 1874, and January 24, 1877. 

On December 3, 1873, Senator Ramsey of Minnesota, introduced 
a bill to establish the territory of Pembina. 1 This bill was referred 
to the committee on territories, and was reported back March 23, 
18744 It received consideration in the senate May 28. An amend¬ 
ment was proposed to substitute “Algonquin” as its name. Stewart 
of Nevada, in the course of the debate said: “There is not sufficient 
good land in the whole of Dakota Territory to make more than one 
state. We are making too many small territories which could never 


’Congressional Record, 43rd Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. II. 29. 
2 Ib., II.. 1331. 



4 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


become states. It would be better to consolidate rather than di¬ 
vide/’ The bill was rejected. 1 2 

The territorial delegate, Moses K. Armstrong, bad introduced 
the same bill into the House on December 15, 1873." On January 
12, 1874, Armstrong presented a petition from citizens of northern 
Dakota praying for the organization of the new territory of Pem¬ 
bina. 3 After waiting until March 14 for some action on the bill 
lie obtained unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional 
Record some/remarks on this bill to organize this new territory out 
of the northern half of Dakota. He very forcibly set forth the 
claims of the citizens to consideration by the House. 4 

On February 15, 1875, Armstrong presented a petition from the 
legislature of Dakota Territory asking for division and the forma¬ 
tion of a new territory from the northern part. 5 

The next attempt was to fare a little better only to die in the 
hands of the committee of the House. Senator Windom of Min¬ 
nesota, on March 16, 1876, introduced a bill to establish the territory 
of Pembina and provide a temporary government for it. 1 7 * ' This was 
reported back from the committee on territories, April 10, without 
amendments, was considered and passed by the Senate, August 
8, 1876/ Kidder, the delegate from Dakota, introduced this bill 
into the House, but the bill came back from the committee with 
amendments, was recommitted, March 31, and no further action is 
reported. 9 

A memorial from the Legislature of Dakota Territory praying 
for division of the territory, and against its admission as a state 
with the present boundaries of the territory was presented to the 
next Congress. 10 On January 7, 1879, Kidder, the delegate from 
Dakota Territory, introduced a bill to enable the people of Dakota 
to form a constitution and state government and for the admission 
of the state to the Union. This was read and referred to the com¬ 
mittee on territories but no further action on the bill is reported. 11 

On January 7, 1880, Bennett, the new delegate from Dakota Ter¬ 
ritory? introduced a bill to organize the territory of Pembina, 12 and 
on March 18th presented a petition from sixty-eight citizens of 
northern Dakota asking that the bill be amended by changing the 
name to North Dakota or Northern Dakota, and when so amended 
that the bill be passed, and at the same time he presented the petition 
of one hundred ten others of similar purport. 13 On April 3rd there 

’Cong. Record, 43 rd Cong., 1st Sess., I., 4345. 

2 Ib., II., 208. 

3 Ib., II., 602. 

’Ib., I., 2164 and App._, iii ff. 

3 Cong. Record, 43rd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1301. 

G Cong. Record, 44th Cong., 1st Sess., 2128. 

7 Ib., 2340. 

s Ib., 527-1. 

9 -Cong. Record, 44th Cong., 1st Sess., 245, 2128. 

in C’ong. Record, 45th C'ong., 3rd Sess., Vol. VIII., 3. 

11 lb., VIII... 364. 

12 Cong. Record, 46th Cong., 3rd. Sess., Vol. X., 223. 

33 Journal of the House of Rep., 46th Cong., 2nd Sess., 804. 





STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


5 


was presented the petition of sixty-one citizens of Mapleton and 
another of one hundred twelve citizens of Grand Forks asking the 
change in name of the territory and the passage of the bill, and a 
petition from one hundred fourteen citizens of Pembina county 
urging the passage of the bill but making no requests as to change 
of the name of the new territory to he created. All were referred 
to the committee on territories. 1 On March 22, 1880, Senator 
Kirkwood, of Iowa, by request, introduced a bill to establish the 
Territory of Pembina. 2 On December 0, 1880, Bennett, the territor¬ 
ial delegate, introduced a bill to enable the people of Dakota Ter¬ 
ritory to form a constitution and state government and for the ad¬ 
mission of the state to the Union on equal footing with the original 
states. This was read twice and referred to the committee on terri- 
tories. 3 4 Mr. Paddock, of Nebraska, introduced a similar bill, De¬ 
cember 8, 1880. 1 On February 3, 1881, Bennett presented a peti¬ 
tion from citizens of Pembina county, Dakota Territory, for the di¬ 
vision of the territory on the 46th parallel, and for the organization 
of 'the north half into a territory and the admission of the south 
half of the state. 5 * 

At the opening of the next Congress, Senator Windom, Decem¬ 
ber 6, 1881, introduced a bill to admit the entire territory as a 
state. This was read twice and ordered to lie on the table to be 
referred to the committee on territories, when appointed. At the 
same time he introduced another bill to establish the territory of 
North Dakota. 0 The same day Senator Saunders of Nebraska had 
introduced a bill for the admission of the entire territory, 7 and Sen¬ 
ator Davis of Illinois, had presented a petition from the citizens of 
Spink county, Dakota Territory, asking for admission. 8 On De¬ 
cember 19th. Pettigrew, the new delegate from Dakota Territory, 
introduced a bill for the admission of the entire territory, and on 
the same day a bill to establish the territory of North Dakota. 9 

On January 9, 1882, Senator Windom presented a memorial from 
citizens of the northern part of the territory in favor of a bill for 
dividing the territory and naming the northern part North Dakota. 10 
On the next day Senator McMillan presented a petition from Grand 
Forks asking for division and the passage of the bill creating a new 
territory and naming it North Dakota. The resolutions accompany¬ 
ing the "petition were signed by W. T. Collins as president and B. D. 
Webster as secretary, 11 and on January 16. McMillan presented a 
similar petition from citizens of Grand Forks county, the proceed- 


'Cong. Record, 46th Cong., 2nd. Sess., Yol. X., 2115. 

2 Ib., 1769. 

Hb., Vol. XI., 11-12. 

4 Ib., 34. 

6 Ib., 1199. 

Hb., XTIL, 21. 

•Tb., XITT., 29. 

Hb., XITT., IS. 

Hb.. XTTT., 206. 

'"Tb., XITT., 264. 

"lb., XITT., 303. 




6 


STATE , HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


ings of the meeting in which this was adopted being attested by C. 
A. Burton as president, and Francis Knight, secretary. 1 

On January 17 Speaker Kiefer presented to the House the peti¬ 
tion which Senator Davis had presented to the Senate on December 
6, 2 and on the 19th Senator Windom presented another petition 
from residents of the northern part of the territory asking for ad¬ 
mission of the entire territory. 3 

On February 16 Burrows of Michigan, reported a substitute bill 
providing for the admission of Dakota as a state, 4 and on February 
25, Grout, of Vermont brought in a bill to divide the territory. 5 
This brought out a remonstrance from Reed of Maine, who, on 
March 5, 1882, presented a petition from citizens of Maine asking 
that the territory be not admitted on the ground that they had 
repudiated their bonded indebtedness. 6 Senator Saunders, chair¬ 
man of the committee on territories, on March 20, 1882, submitted 
a report of that committee, and presented a bill to enable the peo¬ 
ple of the territory to form a state constitution. 7 The next day 
Senator Hale of Maine presented a remonstrance from creditors of 
a bond issue which was considered to have been repudiated and gave 
notice that he purported that the territory should not be admitted 
until its record was cleared of the repudiation. Senator McMillan 
of Minnesota took up the challenge warmly and asked the Senate 
to suspend judgment until the case was heard. 8 The same day in 
the House a protest against the admission of the territory as a state 
unless the right of suffrage was extended to women was presented 
by Kelley of Pennsylvania. 0 On March 22, in the House, a minority 
report against admission was presented and ordered printed. 10 On 
March 27 the bill was recommitted on request of Senator Vest 
as he had not had an opportunity to consider the matter with the 
committee. 11 On April 5 Saunders brought in a majority report 1 " 
and five days later Vest presented the minority report. 13 On May 
2nd another remonstrance in regard to woman suffrage was pre¬ 
sented to Senator Ferry of Michigan, 14 and on July 17 an attempt 
to suspend the rules and make the bill for the admission of the 
territory a special order was attempted by Burrows of Michigan, 
but the motion was lost as it failed to secure a two-thirds vote. 15 

On December 5, 1882, Senator Saunders gave notice that he 
would call up the bill for the admission of Dakota Territory stating 

"Cong. Record, 46th Cong., 3d Sess., XIII., 401. 

2 Ib., XIII., 460. 

:i Ib., XIII., 501. 

4 Tb., XIII., 1220. 

•'Tb., XIII., 1440. 

°Ib., XTIT., 1628. 

7 Tb., XTTI., 2045. 

s Ib., XIII., 2097-8. 

*I-b., XIII., 2140. 

"Tb., XIII., 2140. 

"Tb., XIII., 2277. 

,2 Tb., XIII., 2598. 

"Tb., XIII., 2725. 

l4 Ib., XTTT., 3493. 

"Tb., XIII., 6156. 





STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


7 


that the number of votes cast at the last election would relieve all 
doubts as to the sufficient population and that he would ask early ac¬ 
tion. 1 2 On December 7, Pettigrew, the delegate, presented a mem¬ 
orial from the citizens of the county which was charged with re¬ 
pudiation, explaining the condition of the bond issue, and asking 
authority to issue new bonds to liquidate all indebtedness of the 
county.- On January 5, 1883 Senator Ingalls presented a petition 
from citizens of Dakota praying for action on the bill to admit the 
territory and he asked the Senate to take early action. 3 The state¬ 
ment of Senator Ingalls was challenged by Senator Vest and the 
challenge brought out sharp debate in which malignant and par¬ 
tisan opposition was charged and denied. 4 On February 5, Repre¬ 
sentative Grout again moved the suspension of the rules in order to 
get the bill to establish a territory of North Dakota to an early 
hearing. 5 * A bill of 25 sections providing for complete territorial 
government of the new territory was read. The bill at this time 
met serious opposition in the House and the attempt to get it to an 
immediate hearing failed. In spite of the protests to the contrary 
political considerations in Congress were hindering favorable action 
on the bill to create the new territory. 0 No definite action was 
taken on this bill at this session of Congress. 

In June, 1883, a convention of one hundred eighty-eight delegates 
from thirty-four counties of the southern part of the territory met 
at Huron and resolved that the interests of the people of the terri¬ 
tory (for all of whom they presumed to speak) demanded a division 
of the territory on the forty-sixth parallel, and they provided for a 
convention to be held at Sioux Falls to form a state constitution. 
This convention met at Sioux Falls in September, 1883, were in 
session fourteen days, and the results of their labors were submitted 
to the voters in forty-two counties of the southern half of the 
territory and carried by a vote of nearly two to one. 7 But Congress 
never gave authority to this document. 

On January 29, 1884 Senator Cameron introduced a bill to estab¬ 
lish the Territory of North Dakota. 8 9 On February 4, Maginnis, 
the delegate from Montana, introduced a bill to enable the people 
of North Dakota to form a constitution and be admitted to the 
Union. 0 On the same day Senator Cameron introduced a similar 
bill into the Senate. 10 On February 18, Senator Harrison present¬ 
ed a petition signed by Bartley Tripp and other citizens of Dakota 
Territory who represented a convention held at Sioux Falls on the 
12 of the preceding September. This convention had framed a 

'Cong. Record, 46th Cong., 3d Sess., XIV., 23. 

2 Ib., XIV., 87, (The memorial explaining the bond issue is printed in full in the 
journal at the reference given). 

3 Ib., XIV., 870. 

4 Ib., XIV., 870-1. 

5 Ib., XIV., 2105. 

c Ib., XIV., 2105-0. 

7 Ib., XVI., iii. Speech of Benjamin Harrison. 

s Ib., XV., 713. 

9 Ib., XV., 866. 

10 Ib., XV., 844. 




8 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


constitution for that part of the territory lying south of the 46th 
parallel. The constitution and other papers were submitted and 
Congress was asked to admit the southern part of the territory to 
statehood under the constitution. This was referred to the com¬ 
mittee on territories. 1 The same day Senator Harrison introduced 
a bill to admit the entire territory of Dakota to the Union. 2 On 
February 29, Harrison, from the committee on territories reported 
a bill to enable the people of that part of the territory south of the 
46th parallel to become a state. 3 This bill was again reported with 
amendments from the committee on March 13, 1884. 4 On April 
1, Raymond, a delegate, presented a petition from outside par¬ 
ties asking that the territory should not be admitted and this seems 
to be the last action taken during this session of Congress. 3 * 

The bill to divide the territory on the 46th parallel and admit the 
southern half to the Union was considered in the Senate, Decem¬ 
ber 9, 1884.° Benjamin Harrison was chairman of the Senate com¬ 
mittee on territories and he made an able plea in behalf of this bill. 
An interesting point in the series of debates upon this measure was 
the motion to change the name of the new territory to be organized 
out of the northern half of Dakota to Lincoln instead of North 
Dakota. This proposal came from Mr. Harrison, but seems to have 
received little consideration. 7 In spite of opposition a bill to admit 
the southern half of the state passed the Senate December 16, 1884. 8 
This bill was referred to the House, January 28, 1885, but failed to 
pass in that body. 9 

The territorial legislature again passed a memorial to Congress, 
January 31, 1885, as follows: 

“A joint resolution and memorial to the Congress of the United 
States, Praying for the Division of Dakota and for the admission of 
the southern portion of said territory as a state. 

To the Honorable, the Congress of the United States: 

“The Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Dakota respect¬ 
fully represents: 

“That the people of this territory earnestly desire the passage 
of the bill now pending in the House of Representatives, providing 
for the admission of the southern portion of Dakota as a state, and 
for the creation of a separate territory from the northern portion 
thereof, dividing the same on the seventh standard parallel, accord¬ 
ing to the government survey, or the forty-sixth parallel of north 
latitude in the discretion of Congress. 

“The desire for division is so universal, and the reasons for it so 

] Cong. Record, 4Gth Cong., 3d Sess., XV., 1176. 

2 Ib., XV., 1177. 

:; Ib., XV., 147S. 

4 Ib., XV., 1824. 

'Ib., XV., 2498. 

,! Ib., XVI., 109. 

Hb., XVI., 111. 

s Ib., XVI., 282. 

°Ib., XVI., 1038-1052. 





STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


9 


apparent that the people of this territory have believed'and still 
believe, that this measure of justice cannot be refused them. 

“The probable division of the territory has been considered in 
the territorial conventions of both political parties at every meeting 
for the last thirteen years, and these conventions, in almost every 
instance without a dissenting voice, have invariably declared in 
favor of division. 

“The Legislative Assembly of the territory has repeatedly mem¬ 
orialized your honorable body for division. 

“Public institutions have been located and built with a view to 
division. 

“Conventions have been held in each section to promote division, 
and delegations have been appointed to go to the capital of the 
United States to labor for division. 

“The people of the territory have employed every possible form of 
respectful petition for division. 

“The population and area of the territory justify division, and 
refusing it leaves both sections in an unsettled condition and oper¬ 
ates to the serious disadvantge of both; the area of the territory is 
greater than the united area of New Hampshire, Vermont, Massa¬ 
chusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Penn¬ 
sylvania, Delaware and Maryland. 

“The population of the territory shown by its vote, by the public 
lands occupied, by its postal and internal revenues, and by its bank¬ 
ing and other business interests, is not less than 450,000, and there 
is good reason for believing it amounts^ to 500,000. The population 
of the southern portion, for which admission is asked, cannot fall 
much short of 300,000, and will soon exceed that figure. 

“The climate, surface and soil of the territory are as well adapted 
to agricultural pursuits and the ordinary industries of the world 
as are the climate, surface and soil of Illinois or Iowa. The people 
of the territory have as great regard for the rights of others, and 
smart as keenly under a sense of injustice as those of any other 
state or territory. 

“The revenue paid into the United States treasury by the people 
of Dakota, and all statistics obtainable prove that the population and 
material interests of the territory are sufficiently great to justify 
this consideration at your hands. 

“No difficulty can arise as to the apportionment of the public 
debt of the territory, as it was created for the erection of public 
buildings, and the bonds clearly show for what purpose issued; 
those issued for public buildings in that part of the Territory south 
of the forty-sixth parallel should be paid by the southern division of 
the territory, and those issued for public buildings erected in the 
north should be paid by the northern division of the territory. 

“The union of the two sections into one state would be unnatural, 
and would lead to endless difficulties. 

“The division prayed for is wise. It will quiet, redress, prevent 







V S' 







10 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 



difficulties and misunderstandings, which will arise if it is not 
granted, and will promote the interests of both sections. 

“And although the people of all Dakota are earnestly in factor 
of the admission of the southern half as a state, still they will hail 

with joy the division of the territory.and the admission 

prayed at the earliest possible date. 

"And for your favorable consideration hereof your memorialists 
will ever pray. 

“Resolved, That a copy of the above and foregoing memorial, 
signed by the president of the Council and speaker of the House, 
and attested by the chief clerks, be sent to the President of the 
United States Senate, the speaker of the House of Representatives 
of the United States, and to our delegate in Congress, the Honorable 
John B. Raymond." 1 

‘A second constitutional convention 4 within the proposed new 
state was held at Sioux Falls in September, 1885. This conven¬ 
tion adopted a state constitution which was submitted to the people 
and carried bv a vote of about four to one. 2 

j 

This new constitution and a memorial from the convention was 
presented to the Senate by John Sherman, president pro tern, on 
December 15, 1885. 3 On the same day Harrison introduced a bill 
to admit the state of Dakota and organize the territory of North 
Dakota. 4 On December 18, Gifford, the delegate, had presented 
in the House the official papers from the convention held at Sioux 
Falls in the preceding September. 5 

The action of the Dakota people in forming a constitution and 
preparing for a state government without the authority of Congress 
brought out a sharp criticism from Senator Butler of South Carolina 
who offered resolutions instructing the committee on territories to 
inquire by what warrant or authority a so-called state legislature 
was organized in Dakota. This was on December 16 and on the 
two following days this resolution was debated in Congress but did 
not pass. 6 On December 21, 1885, Frederick introduced a bill to 
enable the people of Dakota to form a state constitution. 7 Qn Jan¬ 
uary 11, 1886, Harrison, chairman of the committee on territories, 
reported a substitute bill in which he provided for the organization 
of the territory of Lincoln. 8 This was debated for several days 
and was passed by the Senate, February 5, 1886. n This bill was 
referred to the House committee on territories February 9, 10 but 
was reported back adversely. 11 

’From a paper found in the collections of the State Historical Society of North Dakota. 

2 See speeches of Butler and Harrison, Cong. Record, 46th Cong., 3d Sess., Vol. 16, 

213, 243-246, 301. (This constitution was amended in 1880 and adopted as 

constitution of South Dakota. R. M. B.) 

Cong., 3d Sess., XVII., 178. 


s Cong. Record, 46th 

4 Ib., 

XVII., 

179. 

3 Tb., 

XV IT., 

339. 

c Ib., 

xvrr., 

213. 

■lb., 

XV IT., 

386. 

s Ib., 

XVII., 

94S. 

"lb., 

XVII., 

1171. 

lft lb., 

XVII., 

1295. 

11 lb., 

XVII., 

4891. 







STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


11 


On January 7, 1886, Gifford, the delegate, introduced a bill to 
admit the entire territory as a state. 1 On the 11, Joseph, the dele¬ 
gate from New Mexico, introduced a bill to divide the territory on 
the Missouri river and organize the Territory of Lincoln. 2 On Feb¬ 
ruary 8, Springer presented a bill to enable the people east of the 
Missouri to form a constitution and be admitted as a state. 3 This 
was followed on March 29 by two bills introduced by Hill of 
Ohio; one to admit the entire state, the other to divide the territory 
and organize the territory of North Dakota. 4 On April 26, 
Springer reported a bill to admit the entire territory as a state. 5 
Petitions to divide the territory on the 7th Standard Parallel were 
presented on April 12. 28, and May 5.° And on May 3, 
P>aker introduced a bill to establish the territory of North Dakota, 
but this was reported back adversely. 7 On January 18, 1886, of this 
session, Harrison had introduced a resolution to admit Moody to the 
floor of the Senate for the present session. Moody had been elected 
senator in the movement which had created the provisional govern¬ 
ment at Sioux Falls. This resolution was' strongly debated but 
finally passed. s 

Soon after the opening of the next session of Congress, Springer 
(December 13, 1886) introduced a bill to enable the people of Da¬ 
kota, Montana, Washington and New Mexico to form constitutions 
for admission into the Union. 9 This did not receive consideration 
and an attempt on February 18, 1887, to fix a date for the hearing 
of this and other bills failed 10 and no further congressional action 
was taken in regard to the admission of Dakota by that Congress. 

In 1887 the constitution previously formed at Sioux Falls was 
submitted to the people of the entire territory by act of the terri¬ 
torial legislature. 11 An act to submit the question of the division of 
the territory to a vote of the people passed the Council March 7, 
1887, 12 and the territorial House on March 11. 13 This was sub¬ 
mitted to the voters November 8, 1887, and carried by a good 
majority. 14 The territorial legislature again sent a memorial to Con¬ 
gress asking for division and admission to statehood, but a great 
presidential campaign was approaching. 15 

On December 12, 1887, Manderson introduced a bill to admit the 
southern part to statehood and organize the northern part as the 

’Cong. Record, 46th Cong., 3d Sess., XVII.,527. 

2 Tb., XVII., 597. 

•Ib., XVII., 1220. 

4 Ib., XVII., 2886. 

5 Ib., XVII. , 3837-4891. 

,! Ib., XVII., 3416, 3955, 4222. 

Hb., XVII., 4105, 4891. 

s Ib., XVII., 701, 741-6. 

!, Ib., XVIII., 121. 

’"Ib., XVIII., 1922-3. 

11 Ib., XIX., 2803. See speech of Platt. 

12 CounciI Journal, Dakota, 1887, 617. 

’•‘House Tournal, Dakota, 1887, 885. 

’’Cong. Record., 46th Cong., 3d. Sess., XIX., 2807-8. Speech of Platt. 

’■'Ib., XIX., 5111, and speech above cited. 



12 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


territory of Lincoln, 1 and on the same day Senator Turpie intro¬ 
duced a bill to admit to statehood Washington, Dakota, Montana, 
and New Mexico. 2 January 4, 1888, Springer, introduced a bill to 
admit the entire territory of Dakota. 3 Baker presented a bill to 
admit South Dakota anti organize the territory of North Dakota, 
and Gifford, the delegate, a bill to admit North Dakota to state¬ 
hood. 4 5 The next day Platt introduced a bill to admit North Dakota 
to statehood. 3 And on the 10, Yoorhees, the delegate from Wash¬ 
ington, introduced a bill to admit Washington, Dakota, Montana and 
New Mexico. 6 On January 23, Manderson’s bill was reported back 
with amendments and on January 25, Butler presented a substitute 
bill for the admission of the entire terirtory of Dakota. 7 Mr. 
Springer, the chairman of the committee on territories of the House, 
reported, March 13, 1888, a bill to enable the people of Dakota. 
Montana, Washington and New Mexico to form state constitutions 
and be admitted. 8 On April 9, to the 10, these bills were debated 
in the Senate. 9 April 19, 1888, a bill to admit Dakota passed the 
Senate. 10 On June 11th, Gifford, the delegate, presented a memorial 
for the division of the territory and the admission of both parts, 11 
but no bill to admit the Dakotas was passed by the House at this 
session. 

In 1883 the territorial capital was removed from Yankton to Bis¬ 
marck, and this added to the discontent of the different parts of the 
territory and hastened division. 

Three conventions had been held under the leadership of men in¬ 
terested in the division of the territory and the admission of North 
Dakota. In September, 1883, a call was issued to the mayors of the 
cities of northern Dakota to meet in Fargo to take some concerted 
action looking towards the admission of the territory as a whole 
or its division. The delegates met over the electric light office in 
the city of Fargo, and resolutions were adopted in favor of ad¬ 
mission or division. 

The next convention of this character was the one held in Aber¬ 
deen in 1887. Major Edwards of Fargo was again one of the 1 lead¬ 
ing members. This convention is commonly known as the “Wind 
Convention.’' The north half of the territory and Brown county 
(now in South Dakota) sent delegates to this convention, where a 
resolution was passed that the territory should be divided into two 
states, the northern half to be called North Dakota. 

Another convention was called at Jamestown (in 1888). A com¬ 
mittee of live was appointed to memorialize Congress asking for ad- 

J Cong. Record, 4Gth Cong., 3d Sess., XIX., 22. 

2 Ib., XIX., 29. 

;; Ib., XIX., 209. 

'lb., XIX., 224-234. 

5 Ib., XIX., 258. 

°Ib., XIX., 362. 

"lb., XIX., 615-91. 

s Ib., XIX., 2021. 

9 Tb., XIX., 2802, 3124, 3140. 

10 Ib., XIX., 3140. 

11 lb., XIX., 5111. 




STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


13 


mission to statehood and the passage of the Springer bill. This 
committee, of which M. N. Stevens of Lisbon, was chairman, met 
in Fargo and adopted a memorial and appointed Mr. Stevens as a 
committee of one to present the memorial to Congress. At Wash¬ 
ington he met with the South Dakota committee and their efforts 
were successful in securing in the bill the provision for two states 
out of Dakota Territory. 1 

Believing that the desired boon of statehood could be more easily 
secured by being well prepared the Legislative Assembly of 1889 
provided for a constitutional convention for North Dakota. This 
bill was introduced into the Territorial Legislature on January 9, 
1889, 2 and passed that body January 26th. 3 It was reported to the 
Council and passed that body February 3, 1889. 4 

In January, 1889, the battle in Congress for the admission of the 
Dakotas began in earnest. Heretofore the ‘Senate had been more 
willing to admit these territories and the bills had failed in the 
House. In this session of Congress, the House led in the consider¬ 
ation of bills to admit the territories. On January 15, 1889, Spring¬ 
er, the chairman of the committee on territories in the House called 
up the former bill and it was amended and debated the same day. 
It provided for the admission of Dakota, Washington, Montana, 
Idaho, and New Mexico, or “in lieu of the state of Dakota the states 
of North Dakota and South Dakota/' 5 This bill was debated on the 
next three days and on January 18 it was amended and passed by 
the House. 6 On January 19 it was referred to the committee on 
territories in the Senate. 7 On January 21, Gifford, the delegate, 
presented a joint resolution from the legislature of Dakota Territory 
urging the passage of the bill. 8 Numerous petitions were being re-' 
ceived all asking for the admission of the territories to statehood. 
On February 1, the House amendments were not concurred in by 
the Senate and a conference of the two Houses was asked, and con¬ 
ferees were at once appointed by the Senate. 9 The House appointed 
its conferees on February 2, 10 but the conference reported a dis¬ 
agreement and submitted its report to each house. 11 On Febru¬ 
ary 14, the conference report was considered in the House and 
instructions were given to the conferees, 12 and a second conference 
was appointed. 13 The report of this second conference was made 
to the Senate February 20, was debated and agreed to. 14 On the 
same day (February 20) the House agreed to the report of the con- 

1 From M. N. Stevens. 

2 House journal, 18th Session, Dakota, 1S89, 10. 

"House Journal, 18th Session, Dakota, 1889, 229 : 

4 Council Journal, 18th Session, Dakota, 1889, 256. 

5 C'ong. Record, 46th Cong., 3d Sess., XX., 795, 798, 829. 

6 Ib., XX., 899, 934-5, 951. 

7 Ib., XX., 991. 

8 Ib., XX., 1062. 

9 Ib. ,XX., 1390. 

10 Jb.,XX., 1425. 

11 lb., XX., 1640-1727. 

I2 Th., XX., 1904. 

inh., XX., 1916. 

14 Ib., XX., 295, 2104. 




14 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


ference and after a brief debate passed the bill. 1 The bill was sent 
to the president and his message of approval reached the Senate 
February 22, 188b. 2 3 

The debates in Congress were followed with much interest by 
the people of Dakota. One paper says, “Last Tuesday was the 
time fixed by Congress for the consideration of the bill for the ad¬ 
mission of Dakota. At 1 :30 Springer arose and merely opened the 
battle, then came Cox, followed by Gifford, the delegate. He was 
followed by Toole of Montana, who made an able effort and scored 
the administration in a scathing manner."•° > 

An abstract of Springer’s speech was given later: “The propo¬ 
sition calls for the admission of five states if Dakota divides, if not 

it will bring in four states.South Dakota has no grounds to 

claim distinction although more populous. North Dakota, Mon¬ 
tana, Washington and New Mexico each have a population above 
the ratio of representation. It is idle to speculate upon the future 
politics of these new states." 4 Also a brief extract was given of Mr. 
Cox’s speech: “Territorial organization is an alien system. Our 
fathers would have none of it in the Revolution, and our country¬ 
men were prompt to get rid of it after our civil war." 5 “The 
Washington correspondent writes that the Omnibus Bill passed the 
House on February 20. The report was agreed to in the Senate 
without division. Representatives Baker and Springer called on 
the president on the 21 and gave him a printed copy of the bill 
as finally adopted by both houses. The enrolled copy was taken to 
him later in the day. The representatives stated that it was the 
desire of the members on both sides of the house that the bill 
should be signed on Washington's Birthday as a matter of senti¬ 
ment.” The president, of course, did not say that he would comply 
with the request, but he seemed willing to take that sentimental 
view of the subject." 

In describing the scenes in Congress for the Dakota people the 
correspondent says: “The Senate followed the action of the Hous^ 
in adopting the bill for the admission of the four northern terri¬ 
tories.Springer and the three territorial delegates fol¬ 

lowed the report over from the House and sat on the Senate sofas 
during the debate, while Judge Moody and several other Dakota 
visitors occupied seats in the galleries. 

“It took an hour to read the bill.There was a wild 

scene in the house when the bill passed. The more enthusiastic 
members took from their seats the great bundles of papers, con¬ 
gressional records, books, and anything in sight and hurled them 
high in the air. Then began a general handshaking which lasted for 
some ten minutes. The Minnesota delegation, headed by McDonald, 

’Cong. Record, 46th Cong., 3rd Scss., XX., 2112-2116. 

2 Ib., XX., 22 95. 

-Richland County Gazette of January 18, 1889. (Washington Correspondent.) 

’Same, issue of February 8. 

3 Same, issue of March 1, 1889. 







STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


15 


marched to Mr. Springer’s desk, and each in turn shook the hand of 
the chairman of the territorial committee. The territorial delegates, 
headed by Mr. Gifford, Mr. Toole of Montana, and Mr. Voorhees 
of Washington were all recipients of the warmest congratulations. 
The delegation of visiting Dakotans, prominent among them Dele¬ 
gate Mathews, held an informal jollification meeting in the main 
corridor. They intercepted Springer on his way to the Senate and 
he had to run another gauntlet of congratulations. Springer was 
half sick with a cold, caught sitting up nights over the bill, but is as 
happy as a boy.” 

And again: “The residents of the territories of North Dakota, 
South Dakota, Montana and Washington were the happiest men 
in Washington on the 22 . They were in a position to celebrate. 
President Cleveland signed the territorial bill. He seemed to recog¬ 
nize the poetry of signing an act to admit the territory of Washing¬ 
ton to statehood with three big states on the anniversary of the 
birthday of the father of his country. 

“There were a dozen Dakota men in the corridors at the time. 
Their faces shone like spring days when they heard the news, and 
each one hastened to telegraph to his friends in the northwest. 

“There was great satisfaction expressed on both sides of the 
House of Representatives when it was generally known that the 
president has signed the territorial bill. Shortly after the House 
met, a special messenger from the White House brought the fol¬ 
lowing autograph letter to Mr. Springer: ‘Hon. Wm, Springer: 
My Dear Sir—I signed the bill for the admission of the new states 

at 11 o’clock this morning. Yours very truly, Grover Cleveland.' 

* 

THE ENABLING ACT AND ELECTION OF DELEGATES. 

So far as the Enabling Act applied to North Dakota, it provided 
that the area of the territory of Dakota should be divided on the 
line of the seventh standard parallel produced due west to the west¬ 
ern boundary of the territory and that each part should elect dele¬ 
gates to a constitutional convention and that for North Dakota this 
convention should meet at Bismarck, the territorial capital, on July 
4, 1889. 1 2 

The voters to elect these delegates were to be those qualified to 
vote for representatives to the legislative assembly, and the qualifica¬ 
tions of a delegate were to be such as by the laws of the territory 
persons were required to possess to be eligible to the legislative 
assembly. 

“There were to be seventy-five delegates, three from each of 
twenty-five districts, which districts were to be determined by the 
governor, the chief justice and the secretary of the territory, in pro¬ 
portion to the population in each district as near as could be as- 

1 The Richland County Gazette of March 1, 1889. 

2 Official Report of Proceediners and Debates of the First Constitutional Convention 
of North Dakota, Bismarck, 1S89, pp. 5-17. 




16 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


certained at the time. It was also provided that no elector should 
vote for more than two persons for delegates. 

Some conditions were imposed upon the new states which must 
be “irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the 
people of said states.” There were four items: 1. The perfect 
toleration of religious sentiment. 2 . The disclaiming of all title to 
Indian lands, that the lands of non-residents should never be taxed 
at a higher rate than lands belonging to residents, and that no 
taxes should be imposed by the states on lands or property of the 
United States. 3. That the debts and liabilities of the territories 
should be assumed and paid by the states respectively. 4. That 
provision should be made for a system of public schools, which 
should be open to all children and free from sectarian control. 

A joint commission was to be appointed by the constitutional 
conventions of the Dakotas to assemble at Bismarck and agree 
upon an equitable division of the property belonging to the terri¬ 
tory of Dakota, the disposition of the public records and the adjust¬ 
ment of territorial debts. 

The names of the new states were given in the act and it was 
provided that if either constitution should be rejected the part re¬ 
jecting should be continued under the territorial government to be 
known as the territory of North Dakota or South Dakota as the 
case might be, and the governor was to reconvene the delegates to 
form a new constitution or amend the rejected constitution and 
again submit it to the people. If both constitutions should fail 
the territorial government of Dakota was to continue the same as 
if this act had not been passed. The constitution was to be sub¬ 
mitted to a vote of the people on the first Tuesday in October, 1889, 
and the voters were to vote directly for or against the proposed con¬ 
stitution and for or against any articles, or propositions, separately 
submitted. If the constitution was adopted it was to be certified by 
the governor to the president of the United States who, if all pro¬ 
visions had been met, would issue his proclamation admitting the 
state to the Union. 

Each state was to receive sections sixteen and thirty-six of the 
public lands for the support of common schools, and 500,000 acres 
of other lands for state institutions, and none of this land was to 
be sold at a price less than ten dollars per acre. 

The new state was to have one representative in the House of 
Representatives of the United States, was to constitute one judicial 
district and was to be attached to the Eighth Judicial Circuit, and 
provision was made to adjust present courts and judicial proceed¬ 
ings to the new courts to be established. The sum of $20,000 was 
appropriated for defraying the expenses of the convention, and, 
the convention was empowered to provide for the election of officers 
for full state government including members of the legislature and a 
representative in Congress, such state government to remain in 
abeyance until the state should be admitted to the Union. 




STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


17 


Jn accordance with the provisions of this act. Governor Mellette, 
the chief justice, Bartlett Tripp, and the secretary of the territory, 
L. B. Richardson, from the best information available, divided the 
part of the territory north of the seventh standard parallel into 
twenty-five districts, 1 and on April 15 the governor issued a 
proclamation calling for an election to be held on May 14, 1889. 
This call gave official announcement to the districts into which the 
territory of the future state had been divided. 2 * 

The prospect of statehod put the common good of all uppermost 
in the minds of the people. The first wish was to secure the best con¬ 
stitution that could be framed. A good indication of public sentiment 
is given in an editorial in the Bismarck Daily Tribune: “Judging 
from the tone of the press throughout North Dakota there is'a ten¬ 
dency to lay aside factional feeling and send the very best men to 
the constitutional convention. If this spirit prevails on the day of 
election, the convention which convenes in Bismarck on July 4, 
will be a credit to the state. North Dakota has an abundance of 
ability and in the important work of forming her state constitution 
this is a fund she should draw upon."’ 

Throughout the different districts caucuses were held to choose 
delegates to the district conventions. This gave an opportunity to 
those places having “favorite sons." Lively contests occurred in 
Burleigh county to secure support for E. A. Williams, a popular 
resident of Bismarck. 4 A heated contest on party lines was pre¬ 
dicted in Grand Forks county. 5 The Tribune called attention to the 
fact that the Enabling Act gave the Democrats one-third of the dele¬ 
gates but urged the Republicans of the Missouri Slope not to be 
lax in doing their duty for their party. 6 4die next day it suggested 
that Williams, Harris and Judge Carland would give the district 
representation second to none. 7 

The provision in the Enabling Act that each elector should vote for 
only two delegates was for the purpose of minority representation, 
but out of the twenty-five districts only twelve nominated two from 
each party, and nine of these twelve districts nominated two re¬ 
publicans and two democrats, one nominated two each of republi¬ 
cans, democrats, prohibitionists, and people's candidates, one had 
two each of republicans, democrats and prohibitionists, and one had 
two republicans, two independents and one democrat. Four districts 
nominated three republicans and one democrat, two districts nomin¬ 
ated two republicans and one democrat, one district had three 
republicans, two democrats, and one independent; another district 
had three republicans and two democrats, another three republicans 


‘See map of districts, p. 152. 

2 See appendix, p. 152. 

•‘Bismarck Daily Tribune, April IT, 1880. 

4 Bismarck Daily Tribune, May 3, 1880. 

•'•Bismarck Daily Tribune, Mlay 3, 1880. 

“Bismarck Daily Tribune, May 0, 1880. , 

7 Bismarck Daily Tribune, May 5, 1880. Judge Carland was a very able Democrat 

and the three were elected. 





18 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


one democrat and two prohibitionists; two districts had three re¬ 
publicans only, and two districts four republicans and no demo¬ 
crats. There were one hundred eight different people nominated, 
of whom sixty-three were republicans, thirty-four democrats, six 
prohibitionists, three independents and two people’s candidates. 1 
There was no contest in three of the districts, but the scattering of 
the minority gave the republicans a larger number pf delegates 
than would be expected with minority representation. 

Editorially the Tribune remarked that: “We do not want minority 
representation in the constitution of North Dakota. Let the ma¬ 
jority rule." This was before the election, when one third of the 
convention was conceded to the democrats. 2 In Grand Forks coun¬ 
ty eight out of nine elected from the three districts were republi¬ 
cans. 3 

Many of the nominees were unknown in political life outside their 
part of the state. The Tribune said: “The reader is impressed with 
the lack of familiar names among the delegates nominated. A new 
crop of statesmen is springing up.” 4 

Tuesday, May 11, 1889, was one of those days occasionally ex¬ 
perienced in northern latitudes. It was a stormy day all over the 
territory and a light vote was polled. 

“Going to the polls in sleighs on the 14 of May to elect dele¬ 
gates to the constitutional convention was a novelty never to be 
forgotten by those who participated.” 5 6 The election settled all 
contests, for the Bismarck Daily Tribune of May 18, gave the lists 
of successful candidates, and they are the same as the membership 
of the convention. 

THE MEMBERS OF THE CONVENTION 

As provided in the Enabling Act the delegates from the northern 
part of the territory met at Bismarck on July 4 to organize the 
convention. The political composition of the convention is usually 
given as fifty-six republicans and nineteen democrats, but from the 
nominations of those elected, the numbers would be fifty-one re¬ 
publicans, nineteen democrats, two prohibitionists, two people’s can¬ 
didates and one independent. 0 In the convention the five from the 
minor parties were considered republican delegates. 

Fifty-two of the seventy-five delegates were born in the United 
States, of whom Wisconsin contributed 13, New York 10, Iowa 5, 
Ohio 4, Maine 3, Pennsylvania 3, Illinois, Indiana, Connecticut, Min¬ 
nesota and Vermont each 2, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Idamp- 

'This analysis is made from the list of nominees in the Bismarck Daily Tribune of 
May 13, 1889, and the list of members elect as given in the same periodical of Tuly 2, 
1889. 

2 Bismarck Daily Tribune, May 10, 1889. 

3 Bismarck Daily Tribune, May 20, 1889. 

4 Bismarck Daily Tribune, Miay 14, 1889. 

5 Bismarck Daily Tribune, May 15, 1889. 

6 A. W. Hoyt of the sixth district was considered an independent, Messrs. Selby and 
Nowland of the nineteenth district were called people’s candidates, and R. M. Pollock 
of the thirteenth and E. D. Wallace of the eighteenth were known as Prohibitionists. 
Bismarck Tribune, May 13, 1889. 




STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


19 


shire and New Jersey each 1. Ten were born in Canada, five in 
Norway and Sweden, three in England, three in Scotland, and two 
in Ireland. In ancestry they were American 22, English 15, Irish 
12, Scandinavian 10, Scotch 6, Scotch-Irish 3, Scotch-American 2, 
Scotch-Danish 1, German 2, Dutch 1, Welsh l. 1 

As might be expected in an agricultural state, the farmers out¬ 
numbered those of any other occupation. There were 29 farmers, 
25 lawyers, 9 merchants, 5 bankers, 3 real estate dealers, 2 publish¬ 
ers, 2 1 doctor, and one railroad man. 3 While the lawyers were ever 
ready to lead the discussions, it is interesting to note that some of 
the keenest debaters came from the ranks of the farmers. 4 

It was a young men's convention. Sixty-five per cent of the dele¬ 
gates were under forty years of age, the average age being SfiJC 
years. Four of the delegates were still in their twenties. Only 
nine were past fifty, four were sixty or over, the oldest being sixty- 
five and the youngest member in his twenty-seventh year. 

One of the delegates, Mr. Stevens, in a presentation speech, 
characterizes the members from personal acquaintance: “In behalf 
of Messrs. Leach, Chaffee, Gray, Turner, Richardson, McKenzie, 
Wallace and Bartlett of Dickey, whose gray hairs and years of ex¬ 
perience lent dignity to this convention; in behalf of Brothers Car- 
others, Sandager and Brown and Linwell and Glick, whose youth 
has lent fire to this convention ; in behalf of Messrs. Miller, Wil¬ 
liams, Lauder, Purcell, Moer, Bartlett of Griggs, Johnson, Rolfe. 
Flemington, McHugh, Fay, Carland, Camp, Spalding, O'Brien, 
Noble and Parsons of Morton, whose voices have been heard more 
times than those of all other members; in behalf of Messrs. Griggs, 
Marrinan and Budge, who have sat silent, but who have been in¬ 
dustrious members.” 3 * 

Of these delegates two since have been governor of North Da¬ 
kota and three have represented their state in Congress. 0 With the 
political complexion as it was, there was little of the petty partisan 
spirit shown in the work of the convention. On the election of the 
permanent president there was almost a strict party vote. F. B. 
Fancher, republican, received 52 republican and two democratic 
votes. John E. Carland, a democrat, received fifteen democratic 
votes and one republican vote. 7 But this was simply an expression 
of loyalty as both candidates were popular men. The president of 
the convention gave to the democratic members representation on the 
permanent committees equal to their proportion of the whole num- 


3 Biographies of the members are given in the Bismarck Daily Tribune of July 6, 1SS9. 
2 One of these, Chas. V. Brown, was a farmer as well as a publisher. 

"Bismarck Daily Tribune, July 6, 1889. Official Report of Proceedings and Debates 
of the First Constitutional Convention of North Dakota, pp. 5-17. 

4 L. D. Bartlett, I 1 '. B. Fancher and E, D. Wallace were among the best debaters 
in the convention; by occupation they were farmers. 

•"Official Report of Proceedings and Debates, 048. 

,! Roger Allin, 1895-7, and F. B. Fancher, 1899-1901, have been governor. M. N. 
Tohnson, 1891-9, and B. F. Spalding, 1899 to 1901, 1903 to 1905, were representatives, 
’in Congress. M. N. Johnson, 1909, and W. E. Purcell, 1910, U. S. Senators. 

^Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 3-4. 






20 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


ber of delegates and chairmanships were also distributed in the same 
proportion. 1 

METHODS OF PROCEEDURE IN THE CONVENTION 

On Thursday, July 4, at 12 o’clock, the delegates met in the hall 
of the House of Representatives at the capital of the territory, and 
were called to order by Hon. L. B. Richardson, the secretary of the 
territory, who called upon the Rev. Anderson, a pastor at Bismarck, 
to lead in prayer. After the prayer. Secretary Richardson briefly ad¬ 
dressed the delegates and acted as chairman until a temporary chair¬ 
man was elected by the delegates. A temporary secretary and sten¬ 
ographer were chosen, and the motion made to elect a permanent 
chairman. This motion was amended to elect a chairman pro tern 
and a call of the roll was asked, but no roll had been made up. 
F. B. Fancher of Jamestown, was elected temporary chairman. The 
chairman appointed a committee of three on credentials and a com¬ 
mittee of ten on rules for permanent organization. 2 

The committee on credentials reported the second day, the oath 
of office was administered to the delegates bv the Hon. Roderick 
Rose, an associate justice of the territorial supreme court, and the 
convention proceeded to the election of a permanent president. F. 
B. Fancher of Jamestown and John E. Carland of Bismarck, were 
nominated. Fancher was elected by fifty-four votes to sixteen for 
Judge Carland, five delegates being absent. Fancher’s election was 
made unanimous. 3 There seems to have been some question as to 
the legality of the committee on rules which had been appointed 
under the temporary organization, so a committee of seven was 
appointed on rules as the first official act 'of the permanent presi¬ 
dent. 4 

On Monday, July 8, other officers were elected from outside of 
the membership of the convention to complete the permanent or¬ 
ganization as follows: chief clerk, enrolling and engrossing clerk, 
watchman, messenger, chaplain, sergeant-at-arms, stenographer, and 
four pages. The oath of office was administered to these by the 
president of the convention. 5 Immediately after this the delegates 
declared the adoption of the constitution of the United States. 

The rules reported by the committee were considered by the 
convention in committee of the whole and then adopted by the con¬ 
vention. These rules were forty-five in number and provided a 
complete code of parliamentary practice supplementing Robert's 
Rules of Order, which was declared to govern in the convention 
where applicable and not inconsistent with the standing rules. 0 
The rules provided for twenty-three standing committees as fol¬ 
lows : on printing, reporting and publication, accounts and expenses, 
preamble and bill of rights, legislative department, executive de- 

J Ofificial report of Proceedings and Debates, 348. Speech of Mr. Purcell. 

2 Ib. 20-21. 

8 Ib., 20-21. 

4 Tournal of the Constitutional Convention, 3, 4. 

T1 /"» /*» 





21 



STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


parment, judicial department, elective franchise, education, public 
institutions and buildings, public debt and public works, militia, 
county and township organization, apportionment and representa¬ 
tion, revenue and taxation, municipal corporations, corporations 
other than municipal, miscellaneous subjects, schedule, school and 
other public lands, temperance, revision and adjustment, impeach¬ 
ment and removal from office. These committees consisted of from 
five to fifteen members (always an odd number), except the com¬ 
mittee on apportionment and representation which consisted of 
twenty-five members, one from each district. 1 

The convention sat with open doors, and the gallery was occu¬ 
pied by an attentive and appreciative audience of men and women, 
whose presence frequently inspired the oratory of the delegates or 
reflected the sentiment of the public mind. 

Several distinguished visitors were present in the session and 
addressed the convention. Governor Arthur C. Mellette on July 11. 
spoke, calling attention to two policies in constitution making; 
one to embody only fundamental principles in the organic law, 
leaving the details to be worked out in future legislation, the other 
a later policy, to embody all legislation in the fundamental law 
which can safely be placed there. “But if it is right and if you 
know what is the proper thing to embrace in your legislation, the 
more there is in the constitution the better for the people. One of 
the greatest evils is excessive legislation, the constant change every 
two years of the laws, and the squabbles and debates over the dif¬ 
ferent questions that constantly arise. It is wise, in my judgment, 
after the people have decided in which direction their interests lie, 
to embody them in a fundamental law of the land and make it per¬ 
manent. ” He also plead for the purity of the ballot, “If you can 
secure it, it will not be obtained at two high a cost,” 2 On the same 
day the Rev. R. C. Wiley of the National Reform Association ad¬ 
dressed the convention urging legislation for Sabbath observance, 
for regulating marriage and divorce, for instruction in the prin¬ 
ciples of virtue, and Christianity and morality in the schools, and 
the recognition of God and Christ in the constitution. 3 On July 
17, Judge Cooley of Michigan addressed the convention stating 
that many new questions were vital today which were unknown to 
the constitution makers of a hundred years ago. He advised the 
delegates to remember that times change and jthe legislature should 
not be prevented from meeting those evils which are sure to come. 
“Don’t in your constitution-making legislate too much. In your 
constitution you are tying the hands of the people. You have got 
to trust somebody in the future and it is right and proper that each 
department of government should be trusted to perform its legiti¬ 
mate function." 4 


1 Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 10. 

2 'Official Report of Proceedings and Debates, 44-7. 

:i Tb., 49-52. 

4 Ib., 65-7. 




22 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


On August o, two members of the United States Senate com¬ 
mittee on irrigation of arid lands were present. Senator Stuart, 
chairman of' that committee, was introduced and spoke on irrigation 
and its benefits and possibilities in the Northwest. 1 He was fol¬ 
lowed by Senator Regan of Texas. Major Powell, the director of 
the geological survey, was also present and spoke on irriga¬ 
tion, advising the delegates to allow no capital or corporation to 
secure possession or right to the natural waterways of the state. 
“Hold the waters in the hands,of the people.” 2 On July 8, Mr. 
Henry B. Blackwell of Boston addressed the convention in behalf 
of woman suffrage urging the delegates to grant the ballot to wo¬ 
men or at least to place a clause in the constitution empowering the 
legislature to extend the suffrage to women in the future. 3 On 
July 30, Mr. Buell of Minneapolis spoke on the subject of the 
single tax. 4 

Several matters of interest beyond the territorial boundary were 
before the convention. An invitation to attend the waterways 
convention then in session in that city was received from the Cham¬ 
ber of Commerce of West Superior, Wisconsin. This was re¬ 
ferred to a special committee of five. 5 * On the second day telegrams 
of greeting came from the constitutional conventions of South Da¬ 
kota at Sioux Falls, and the one of Washington at Olympia. 0 Pres. 
Fancher, then temporary chairman, replied to these and to the mes¬ 
sage from the convention of Montana, Idaho waited until its con¬ 
stitution was completed and on August 8 sent in its congratulations 
announcing its complete preparation to enter the sisterhood of 
states. 7 

A petition was received from the persident of the American Sab¬ 
bath Union of New York, asking for a provision to protect and 
encourage Sabbath observance, and suggesting a clause for the con¬ 
stitution. Two weeks later its field secretary sent a communication 
of the same purport. 8 The same day another communication was 
received from New York state in behalf of those who conscientious¬ 
ly observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. 9 On July 
30, a message was received from the brigadier-general commanding 
the department of Dakota (at St. Paul, Minn.) asking that a clause 
be inserted in the constitution by which jurisdiction over the mili-/ 
tary reservations of the five forts in the territory of the new state 
should be reserved by the United .States. 10 

At the time of this convention there was much rivalry among 


1 Official Report of Proceedings and Debates, 397, 405. 

2 Ib., 41 Off. 

s Ib., 34ff. See section 122 of thg Constitution where such a clause may be found 
in that instrument. 

4 Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 156, and Bismarck Daily Tribune of July 
30, 1889. This speech is not printed in the volume of debates. 

3 Tournal of the Constitutional Convention, 13. 

“Official Report of Proceedings and Debates, 22. 

7 Bismarck Daily Tribune, July 5, 1889. 

s Tournal of the Constitutional Convention, 1.22, 189. 

8 lb., 189. 

I0 Ib., 155. 




STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


23 


some half dozen cities for the location of the World’s Fair. It was 
thought by the members of the convention that it would be building 
up the resources of their own state by having this exposition as near 
as they could get it, and as each state and territory was asked for 
an expression, it was considered that the new convention repre¬ 
sented the new state of North Dakota. So a resolution was adopted 
endorsing Chicago as the site for the World’s Fair. 1 

The privilege of the door had been extended to representatives 
of the press that editors and newspaper reporters might be admitted 
within the bar of the house, 2 and the representatives of the press 
had availed themselves of this privilege and had placed copies of 
their papers on the desks of the members.. The Devils Lake Capital 
had editorially cast a slur on the persident of the convention which 
was thought to be a blow at the dignity and respect which the con¬ 
vention should maintain. 3 A resolution was offered withdrawing 
the privilege of the floor from the editor of this paper, but the 
resolution was tabled. 4 

By the provisions of the enabling act Bismarck was the place of 
meeting of the delegates and the regular sessions of the convention 
were held in the hall of the house of representatives. Rooms for the 
work of committees had to be secured, so a committee of three was 
appointed to ascertain the needs of the convention and to find 
necessary rooms, and to learn whether the expenses could be paid 
out of the congressional appropriation. 5 * The next day this com¬ 
mittee reported that there were five rooms in the capital building 
and six rooms in the First National Bank block which could be 
rented. The territorial secretary was of the opinion that the con¬ 
gressional appropriation did not cover the rent of rooms outside the 
capitol building. This report of the committe was placed on file/’ 
The committees made use of the rooms in the capitol, and some 
of them held frequent meetings at the hotel. The Joint Commis¬ 
sion met in the governor's office. 7 

On July 2T, a memorial was presented from the mayor of James¬ 
town, B. W. Fuller, inviting the convention to adjourn to that city 
for the remainder of the time required to complete the constitution. 
The mayor guaranteed rooms for the work of the convention free 
of expense, and entertainment for members of the convention. 8 
This at the time it was presented caused no comment and no action 
was taken. The next day. Camp, a delegate from Jamestown, 
moved that the memorial be referred to a special committee of three 


journal of the Constitutional Convention, 303; Official Report of Proceedings and 
Debates, 599, 600. 

2 Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 303. 

•"’Official Report of Proceedings and Debates, 27. Speech of ML N. Johnson. 

^Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 5. 

5 Ib., 15. 

7 Bismarck Daily Tribune of July 17, July 19, July 24, 18S9, and Official Report of 

Proceedings and Debates, 678. 

s Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 126. 




24 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


to be appointed by the president. 1 Whatever may have been the ex¬ 
pectation of the mayor and citizens of Jamestown, this committee 
the next day reported recommending that the convention “do not 
accept the invitation, and that the clerk be instructed to inform 
the Hon. B. W. Fuller of the decision of the convention.” 2 3 This 
report was adopted and Bismarck, the place chosen by Congress, 
remained the seat of the convention. 

The convention completed its work on the forty-fifth day of its 
session. Of these forty-five days, six were Sundays, and of the 
remaining thirty-nine days, seven were passed m adjournment, leav¬ 
ing thirty-two days on which the convention were actually in session 

The rules provided for a single session each day, “except Sun¬ 
day, until otherwise ordered." This session was to be opened at 
2 p. m. 8 (and was always opened with prayer). This gave the 
evening and forenoon for committee work and was the regular order 
up to July 31, the twenty-eight day of the convention. By this 
time the work of many of the committees was pretty well completed, 
and the debates were taking more of the time and attention of the 
delegates. 4 It was feT that the convention needed more time for 
discussions and less for committee work, so two daily sessions were 
considered. A motion was made that when the convention adjourn 
it reassemble at 10 o'clock a, m., August 1. A substitute resolu¬ 
tion was adopted, “That this convention hold two sessions daily, 
commencing Thursday, August 1, one to commence at 2 p. m. 
and one to commence at 8 p. m.” This was made operative on 
July 31, by a motion fixing the time to which to adjourn “at 8 
o’clock p. m. tonight.” 5 

For three days near the close of the convention three daily ses- 
sions were held bv adjourning to meet at a fixed time in the 
morning. 6 

The convention adjourned twice for a few days, the first time 
being on July 8, and adjournment from Monday to Thursday, (July 
8 to 11). This was just after the election of officers and the adop¬ 
tion of the rules, and was taken largely to allow the persident time 
for making up the committee. 7 The other adjournment was on 
August 8, from Thursday to the following Tuesday. At this time 
the subject matter of the constitution was in the hands of the com y 
mittee an revision and adjustment, and time was needed for them 
to put this material into a complete form, for final action of the 
convention. An extra day at this time was wanted by some of the 
delegates but was not secured. 8 Two other attempts were made to 

Hournal of the Constitutional Convention, 131. 

2 Ib., 151. 

3 Ib., 11. Rule 40. 

*The clerks of many of the committees were discharged Aug. 1, lb., 166, and Of¬ 
ficial Report of Proceedings and Debates, 246. 

3 JournaI of the Constitutional Convention, 162. 

®Ib., 270, 2S5, 307. This was done August 14, 15 and 16. 

7 Ib., 12; Official Report of Proceedings and Debates, 34. (There were 217 places to 
be filled on the standing committees.) 

s Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 205. 




STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


25 


secure adjournment of three days. On Friday, July 19, it was 
moved, “that when the convention adjourn it take a recess until 
Tuesday, 2 o’clock p. m.” Nine members were excused at this 
time, and the motion made to adjourn to Tuesday next, which also 
was lost.’ On the following Friday, a motion by recpiest, was made 
to take a recess until the following Tuesday. On a vote by yeas and 
nays this was lost. It was moved “that members desiring to leave 
of absence, make the request in writing.” This was amended to 
“no member who voted in the negative be granted a leave of ab¬ 
sence.” * 2 

The motion for a recess was made in the interest of the many 
farmers in the convention. It was near the time for harvesting the 
crops and preparation for this farm work should be made. One 
delegate believed it wouTl expedite business to adjourn, as that 
would give them all time to consider the questions to be voted upon, 
and he for himself would be glad to consult his constituents. It 
was also argued that hasty voting on the measures was dangerous, 
and that although the attempt to adjourn the week before from Fri¬ 
day to Tuesday had failed, so many delegates did go home that very 
lithe business was done. 

On the other hand it was urged that business had been too much 
delayed in the convention already, that there were reports of com¬ 
mittees awaiting the action of the convention, that stopping work 
for two days was too expensive on the appropriation, and if private 
business must be done those who had to go could be excused. 3 

Later in the day a motion was passed reconsidering the vote 
by which the motion to take a recess until Tuesday was lost. The 
motion for a recess was again made and an amendment offered sub¬ 
stituting “adjourn for recess.” This amendment was amended that 
the convention adjourn until October 1, but a motion simply to ad¬ 
journ was passed before a vote was taken on these amendments. 4 

Many of the delegates must have interpreted the motion for a 
recess as expressing the will of the majority, for there was no 
quorum present on Saturday or Monday, and no business could be 
done. 5 It was felt and charged that the private business of the 
delegates interferred with the work of the convention, particularly 
on the Tuesday after the first failure to secure a three days’ ad¬ 
journment." 

The rules.of the convention outlined the general methods of work, 
prescribing three readings for all portions of the proposed consti¬ 
tution, the second and third readings not to occur on the same day. 
On the tenth day a resolution was introduced fixing the method by 
which material was to reach the constitution. All matter was to be 


J Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 62. 

2 Ib., 151-152. 

"Official Report of Proceedings and Debates, 149ff. 

4T ournal of the Constitutional Convention, 153. 

B Ib., 154. (The president himself was absent both these days but he had appointed 
a president pro tempore to act during his absence.) 

''Official Report of Proceedings and Debates, 114. The Bismarck Tribune, July 28, 




2G 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


introduced by resolution and read the first time, on second reading 
it was to be referred to the appropriate committee without debate, 
and to be incorporated into the constitution it must have been con¬ 
sidered and reported upon by the committee of the whole. The 
report of the committee on printing provided for the printing of the 
daily journal and extra copies of each article after the first reading, 
for the use of the members of the convention. 1 

The material was introduced as files and numbered consecutively 
on first reading in the order of their introduction, then on second 
reading they were referred to the proper committee, and the re¬ 
ports of standing committees were considered in the committee of 
the whole, then passed upon in the convention and referred to the 
committee on revision and adjustment. 2 

Any delegate was at libertv to introduce as manv files as he 
wished, and of the seventy-five delegates forty-eight introduced a 
total of one hundred forty files, of which one hundred eighteen 
were original matter, twenty-four were reports, two were complete 
constitutions, and one was for the equitable division of the territorial 
property. Eleven of these files were on material relating to the li¬ 
quor traffic, seven of which were on prohibition, two for license, one 
to reimburse brewery companies for property rendered useless, and 
one on regulation of the traffic. 

G. H. Fay of McIntosh county has-the distinction of having in¬ 
troduced the highest number of files. He introduced eight, and A. 
S. Parsons of Morton County and Andrew Sandager of Ransom 
county each introduced six files. Six others introduced four each ; 
fourteen introduced three each ; eight two each ; and seventeen in¬ 
troduced one each. 3 In order to reserve as much time as possible 
for the consideration of reports it was voted on July lb, that no . 
proposed article be received unless by unanimous consent after 
July 22 , but this provision was not in any way to limit the reports of 
committees. 4 


SOURCES OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

A few of the members of the convention had been in political life 
before and all had watched with interest the attempts of the terri- 
torv to secure statehood, so thev had no difificultv in finding material 
from which to draw up a constitution. Many well defined issues 
were already before the people. 

In the Bismarck Tribune of April are to be found the following 
suggestions: “Shall it be prohibition or high license? Local sub¬ 


said: “In spite of the refusal to adjourn from Friday to Monday, two thirds of the dele¬ 
gates went home.” There was a little complaint in the papers that the members were 
politicians and had neglected business for politics. Several had gone home to take part 
in the primaries, but the Tribune thought this was commendable. Bismarck Daily 
Tribune of August 3, 1889. 

^Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 19-20. 

2 For example, see Journal, 41, File No. 59; second reading, 52; reported, 187; con¬ 
sidered 200; report of committee on revision' and adjustment, 256. 

s Ib., 16. (The first article was introduced by M. N. Johnson.) 

4 Ib., 38. 





STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


sidies to new railroads allowed or prohibited? Minority repre¬ 
sentation in the lower house, one democrat to two republicans, or 
the majority principle that prevails in every state of the union ex¬ 
cept Illinois? Limitations of the length of the legislative sessions 
to 60 or 90 days? Sessions annual or biennial? A majority of 
two-thirds to over-ride the governor's veto? The right of the 
executive to veto separate items of an appropriation bill? Shall the 
governor have from 3 to 30 days after the legislature adjourns 
within which to approve or veto bills? The governor to be elected 
for four years? The legislature for two years? No act to be 
amended by title, but full text must be quoted? Shall both parties 
be represented on the supreme bench, making it non-partisan? Sal¬ 
ary schedule to be incorporated or omitted? No new bills to be 
introduced after thirty, forty, or fifty days of the session? Ques¬ 
tions and systems of revenue to be left to the legislature? Shall the 
debt of any city, county, town or school district exceed 5 per cent 
of the assessed value of taxable property ? Shall all appropriations 
except current expenses be made by separate bills and require 
a two-thirds vote in both houses? Shall the Australian or Kindred 
system of voting be required by the constitution?” 1 

Copies of the constitutions of other states were at the capitol 
and free use of these was expected. 2 3 The Enabling Act had been 
printed in pamphlet form and placed on the desks of the members. :: 
One hundred copies of the territorial Council Bill No. 60, providing 
for the Australian ballot system were distributed. 4 

The constitution of South Dakota was on the desk of each mem¬ 
ber. 5 In the debates some of the sources of the articles are given. 
There was some material from laws .of California relating to the 
taxing of railroads. 6 Some material for the clause on amendments 
was taken from the constitution of New Hampshire. 7 The words 
of the legend on the Great Seal were taken from the territorial 
statutes. 8 A part of the provision to safeguard the school fund was 
taken from the constitution of Minnesota. 9 One provision for the 
pardoning power of the governor was taken from the Pennsylvania 
plan. 10 

For the convenience of the delegates, Mr. Williams, one of the 
Bismarck de'egates, had prepared abstracts of topics from Hough’s 
American Constitution, and placed on the desk of each member. 11 
These abstracts were prepared on twenty topics, in fifteen folios. 


‘Bismarck Daily Tribune, April 28, 1889. 

2 Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 59. Speech of M. N. Johnson. 

3 Ib., 67. 

‘Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 27. 

r> Ib., 114. 

6 Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 475. 

Hb., 501. 

8 Ib., 505. See also Section 207 of the state constitution. 

»Ib., 529. 

10 Ib., 318. 

n E. A. Williams is authority for this statement. 





28 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


Book 


Book 


6 . 


Book 4. 
Book 5. 
Book 6. 
Book 7. 
Book 8. 
Book 9. 
Book 10. 


typewritten and stapled at the top into twelve booklets, like legal 
briefs, and were on subjects as follows: 

Book 1. Folio 1. Preamble. 

Folio II. Relation of the United States to the several 
states. 

Folio III. Boundaries of the State. 

Declaration of Rights. 

Folio V. Distributing of the Powers of the Government. 
Folio VI. The Legislative Department. 

Folio VII. The Executive Department. 

Folio VIII. The Judicial Department. 

Folio IX. Tiie Secretary of State. 

Folio X. The Treasury Department. 

Folio X.a The chief auditing offices of the state. 

Folio X.b The State Treasurer. 

Folio X.c Public debts, revenues and expenditures. 
Folio XI. Elections. 

Folio XII. General provisions relating to public officers. 
Folio XII. (a) Education and Science. 

Folio XII. (b) Public Schools. 

Folio XII. (c) Penal and Charitable Institutions. 

Folio XIII. Corporations. 

Folio XIV. County Seats, Cities, Townships and 
Villages. 

Book 11. Folio XV. (a) Public Lands. 

(b) Industrial Resources. 

(c) Public Works, Railroads, etc. 

Book 12. Folio XVI. The Militia. 

Folio XVII. Amendments and Revision of the Con¬ 
stitution. 

The constitutions (with the dates of their adoption) from which 
the abstracts for these folios were taken were: Alabama, 1875; 
Arkansas, 1874; Colorado, 1876; Missouri, 1875; Nebraska, 1875; 
North Carolina, 1876 ; West Virginia, 1872 ; Texas, 1876 ; Penn¬ 
sylvania, 1873 ; and amendments to these adopted since 1872. 1 

The complete constitution introduced July 20, by Mr. Williams, 
of Bismarck, was a document of excellent arrangement and pro¬ 
vided for every need of a state government which might be anti¬ 
cipated. 2 It consisted of a preamble and five parts, viz: The State; 
The People; The Government; Alteration of the Constitution ; and 
Schedule. 

It was subdivided into twenty-seven articles and three hundred 
eightv-two sections. The document attracted much attention at the 
time, and it had great influence upon the work of the convention. 3 

“The Williams document shows that it has been prepared with 

1 A set of these booklets is now in the custody of the State Historical Society at 
Rismarck. 

-It is given in full in the journal of the Constitutional Convention, 65-113. 

•"Mr. Stevens, one of the delegates, says it was generally drawn upon to complete 
the constitution. 





STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


29 


great care. Doubtless some changes will be necessary to make it 
fit North Dakota, but it will prove of great assistance. The docu¬ 
ment should be read carefully by every member.” 1 

However, the question of its authorship has received more con¬ 
sideration than the document itself. 2 Mr. Williams has never 
claimed the authorship but, gratified with the aid it afforded the 
convention and preferring to leave the question to those who wish 
to investigate it, he says that it came from an eastern lawyer and 
was handed to him by a Bismarck lawyer to be presented to the 
convention. 3 

Some newspaper reports at the time may be worth noting: “Some 
searching newspaper correspondent has found out that Hon. Wm. 
M. Evarts is the real author of the Williams’ Constitution introduced 
a few days ago. As AJr. Williams never claimed the authorship of 
the document it may be set down as a fact that Mr. Evarts is the 
real author, and that Mr. Williams’ work on the document has 
simply been of a revisory character. The Grand Forks Plamdealer 
of the 30th, contains the following Bismarck dispatch: 

‘The secret of the authorship of the complete constitution intro¬ 
duced in the convention bv Judge Williams of this place, is out at 
last. No less a master mind than Wm. M. Evarts, of New York, 
planned this frame-work for the new state. A number of wealthy 
non-resident property owners, who hold considerable land near 
Bismarck, wrote to Senator Evarts before the convention assembled, 
and asked how much he wanted for drawing up a model constitu¬ 
tion for North Dakota. 

Senator Evarts replied that he would do it for $500. Accordingly 
ten men “chipped in” $50 apiece, and engaged the great lawyer’s 
services. He went promptly to work and with the assistance of 
some of the best constitutional lawyers in the country, soon had a 
constitution which was a marvel of strength, sense and diction. 
This constitution he sent to Judge Williams on strict conditions that 
he would keep it in the dark. Williams introduced it and accepted 
the authorship, saying never a word. But today it leaked out and 
I give the story here straight away for the benefit of the Plaindealer 
readers.’ 

A Pioneer Press special from Grand Forks reads substantially as 
the above and adds: ‘The clause which is supposed to have been in¬ 
serted at the instance of the land owners, is supposed to be the one 
allowing an appeal from the state board of equalization to the su¬ 
preme court. This would afford non-residents some protection, and, 
as one of the property holders said, “We had better put in $50.00 
apiece and get a good constitution than to leave it to the mercies 
of a lot of men who have special hobbies to look out for.’ ” The 


1 Bismarck Daily Tribune, July 21, 1889. 

2 A Boston paper on the death of Prof. Thayer gave him credit for writing the con¬ 
stitution of North Dakota. See quotation at the end of Chapter. (R. M. B.) 

3 From a personal interview with E. A. Williams. 




30 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


constitution was introduced by Judge Williams, who assumed all 
responsibility and agreed to keep secret the authorship.” 1 

“New York, Aug. 1.—A reporter called yesterday on Senator 
Evarts and read to him a dispatch from Grand Forks, No. Dak., 
which stated that Judge Williams, who presented a complete consti¬ 
tution to the Dakota convention, admitted the senator was the author 
of the document, and that lie had written it to protect the interests 
of non-resident land owners in Burleigh county. Dak. ‘That’s 
quite remarkable ; it is very astonishing,’ said the senator, rubbing 
his hands. ‘In the course of my remarking on the astonishing na¬ 
ture of this information about the Dakota constitution,' said he at 
length, ‘which, hv the wav, is a most excellent one as far as I have 
looked into it, and reflects credit on the deliberate sense of Dakota; 
it is a fact that I have had nothing whatever to.do with it. I 
was not consulted about it and, of course, know nothing about its 
authorship, and in connection you may say I would not regard 
the writing of a state constitution as a professional matter, but would 
esteem it an honor to be invited to assist in such work.” 2 

“Some newspaper correspondent in New York seems to have the 
Hon. E. A. Williams, his constitution, and Hon. W. M. Evarts badly 
mixed. Of course, Mr. Evarts would deny that he wrote the docu¬ 
ment for alien land owners and Williams has never said that it was 
written for him. The fact remains that the constitution was writ¬ 
ten by some one, and a very good document it is, too. The Tribune 
has received enough light on the subject, however, to suspect that 
the Grand Forks dispatch was not far from right.” 3 

“HOW THE CONSTITUTION OF N. D. WAS WRITTEN. 4 

Grand Forks Herald: John E. Blair, secretary of the College of 
Law of the University of North Dakota, who is now located at Spo¬ 
kane, in a letter to the Herald, calls attention to a speech delivered 
on the occasion of the presentation to the Harvard law school of a 
portrait of the late Prof. James Bradley Thayer. The speaker was 
Henry W. Hardon, and he said : 

‘Some fifteen years ago Professor Thayer performed a piece of 
work by no means unimportant, for which, so far as I know, he has 
not yet received public credit. In 1889 the territory of Dakota was 
about to be admitted to the union as two states. Mr. Henry Villard 
was at that time chairman of the finance committee of the Northern 
Pacific Railway. The most important corporation operated in that 
territory. He was sincerely desirous that the two new states should 
have the best constitution which could be framed for them, and with 
this purpose in mind he consulted Charles B. Beaman, then one of 
the leaders of the New York Bar. Mr. Beaman advised him that if 
he could get Professor Thayer to draft a constitution for the new 
states, they would have the benefit of all that expert knowledge and 

'Bismarck Daily Tribune, August 1, 1889. 

2 Ib., August 2, 1889. 

3 Ib., August 2, 1889. 

4 Grand Forks Herald, March 21, 1905. 




STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


31 


sound judgment could accomplish in that respect. Prof. Thayer 
undertook the task. His draft constitution was submitted to the two 
conventions and was in large part adopted by them. The legislative 
article in the constitution of North Dakota, for example, was sub¬ 
stantially word for word the language of Prof. Thayer’s draft. 

‘You may think it is singular that the authorship of a work 
of this character should wait until this time for public disclosure. 
The fact is, that it seemed prudent when the work was doing to con¬ 
ceal its authorship. Though Mr. Villard was moved only by a single 
hearted desire to promote the welfare of the two states, it was feared 
that a draft constitution prepared by an eastern college professor, 
under the direction of a Wall Street lawyer, and at the instance of 
the head of the largest corporation in the territory, might fail of 
adoption if its authorship were known ; that the people whom it was 
designed to benefit might entertain the suspicion that a constitution, 
so prepared, however fair on its face, concealed some sinister attack 
upon their property rights. The two constitutions have been in 
force some fifteen years. Their merits have been proved in that 
time. But two amendments have been made to the North Dakota 
constitution, and one of these incorporates a clause from Professor 
Thayer’s draft omitted by the constitutional convention. The prin¬ 
cipal actors in this scheme to help the people of the Dakotas are now 
all dead, and I am the only survivor of the two men who were en¬ 
gaged in the preliminary work under Professor Thayer's direction. 
The occasion for concealment of the origin of these constitutions 
has now passed and the facts I have narrated should not be lost for 
lack of a record.’ 

.Mr. Blair, in closing his record says that he had a most valued 
acquaintance with Professor Thayer. He had a lack of self-con¬ 
sciousness, which made him the most delightful of friends. Mr. 
Blair says that his admiration for the ‘man makes it a pleasant 
task for him to bring bis services to North Dakota to general notice.” 

THE PROCESS OF ELIMINATION. 

On July 22, the last day for new matter other than committee re¬ 
ports and files except by unanimous consent, a motion was passed 
that all standing committees be required to make reports by Thurs¬ 
day next. 1 This allowed but three days, so on the 25th an attempt to 
reconsider this motion having been lost, several committees had to 
ask for more time, which request was granted and the time for 
final report was extended to the 27. 2 When this day came there 
was no quorum and the reports were not all in until July 31. 

The first committee to report was that on County and Township 
Organization, July 16. But their report was not acceptable and 
seemed to contain too much legislation, so it was recommitted and 
reported back the second time on August 3. 

’Tournal of the Constitutional Convention, 113. 

2 lb., 13:?. 




STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


32 


The committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights had five different 
preambles submitted to them and on July 31 reported the preamble 
submitted by R. N. Stevens as file No. 57, of about seventy-five 
words. In the consideration of this report the preamble of the 
Williams constitution was substituted, consisting of twenty-four 
words considered as complete,- terse, and expressive as the pre¬ 
amble of any state constitution of the Union. 1 

The files relating to School and Public Lands came back in a 
report from the committee in a form largely due to the influence of 
the Williams constitution. An important point gained was the 
obligation of the state to make good all losses of any portion of the 
principal which may m an\ manner occur. 2 Beyond the expected 
amount of differences of opinion, the reports of the committees on 
Education^ Revenue and Taxation, Municipal Corporations, Public 
Debt, and the Militia were readily put in satisfactory terms. The 
committee on corporations other than municipal brought in a ma¬ 
jority report (signed by five members) and a minority report signed 
by four members. In the consideration of the reports the committee 
of the whole used a part of each report. 3 A provision to enforce 
arbitration of differences between a corporation and its employees 
was lost. 4 In the bill of rights every citizen was given freedom to 
obtain employment anywhere but an attempt to prohibit keeping a 
black list of employees was lost. 5 

The committee on the Executive Department presented a report 
which was cpiite easily passed on in the committee of the whole. The 
committee on Schedule waited until all adjustments necessary to 
transform the government from that of a territory to a state govern¬ 
ment was made and then were, requested to hand in their report to 
the committee on Revision and Adjustment. 6 The committee on 
Temperance from the eleven files referred to them, reported in a 
single article of six lines, which prohibited the manufacture or im¬ 
portation of intoxicating liquor or keeping or offering the same for 
sale, gift, barter or trade as a beverage. 7 In committee of the whole 
it was attempted to incorporate this article directly into the constitu¬ 
tion, but many of the delegates feared it would imperil the entire 
constitution and were in favor of submitting it to the voters as a 
separate article. 3 When this article was* reported by the committee 
on Revision and Adjustment it was with the understanding that it 
would be submitted to a separate vote, and this recommendation was 
accepted on final adoption.® 

The committee on Judicial Department was. not unanimous in 
their report. The majority report was made on July 24. Two days 

'Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb.. 357; Tournal of the Constitutional Convention, 184. 

2 Tournal of the Constitutional Convention, 143-75. 

3 Ib., 162, 172-3; Official Report of Proceedings and Debates, 414, 418. 

4 Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 418, 424. 

5 Ib., 365-371 (and constitution, section 23.) 

"Tournal of the Constitutional Convention, 206. 

7 Ib., 138. 

s Ib., 145; Official Report of Proceedings and Debates, 145. 

°Ib., 261, 333. 




STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


33 


later a minority report signed by seven out of the fifteen members 
was presented. The chief difference of opinion was on the question 
of making the county court of concurrent jurisdiction with the dis¬ 
trict court in cases involving not more than $1,000, or crimes below 
the grade of felony. 1 This feature advocated by the minority was 
incorporated as a substitute when the reports were considered in 
the committee of the whole. 2 

There were two much debated questions in the consideration of the 
report on the Judiciary. A very sharp debate centered around the 
plan of obliging the supreme court judges to give their opinions up¬ 
on important questions of law when required by the governor, senate 
or house of representatives. 3 This provision was contained in the 
Williams' constitution, 4 but was not included in either the majority 
or minority reports of the committee. When the reports were 
under consideration by the committee of the whole, Mr. Williams 
again introduced this and three other sections. 5 * 7 

When this was under consideration Judge Carland read at length 
from decisions of two courts in states whose laws had similar 
provisions to show that it was practically impossible for the courts 
in the limited time of the legislative session and with the large 
volume of business before the court at all times to give adequate 
consideration to more than one question at each legislative session, 
and one court recommended that the attorney general, as the natural 
advisor, be consulted on legislative matters. 0 The entire clause was 
stricken out after a sharp debated 

The other question was that of the place or places of holding 
the sessions of the supreme court. The committee had reported as 
a section the provision that “at least three terms of the supreme 
court shall be held each year at the seat of government.” 8 * When this 
was considered, on July 31 r a substitute was offered that one term 
be held at the seat of government, one at Grand Forks, and one at 
Fargo. The members of the committee on judicial department had 
been unanimous in making it read “at the seat of government,” and 
did not believe that the court should be migratory, on account of the 
library and rooms. The substitute at this time was lost, 0 but the 
next day it was adopted, 10 with the' words “Until otherwise provided 
bv law,” at the beginning of the clause. 11 

The' committee on Legislative Department had twenty-two files 
referred to it besides the complete article of the Williams constitu¬ 
tion. The file which attracted most attention was one which pro- 


^ournal of the Constitutional Convention, 127, 150. 

2 Ib., 18-t. 

-Ib., 60; this was file 96, introduced by Mr. Lohnes. 

4 Ib., 97. 

5 Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 228. 

G Ib., 252-8. 

7 Ib., 275. 

s.Tournal of the Constitutional Convention, 1S7. 

’'Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 212-214. 

10 Ib., 270. 

“Tournal of the Constitutional Convention, 167. 




34 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


vided for a single house in the state legislature. 1 * It was probably 
taken from the Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1872 or 1873 

Before the convention had assembled M. H. Jewell, editor of the 
Bismarck Tribune, advocated a legislature of a single house.- Two 
weeks later this paper says, “it is not alone in advocating a single 
house. The Minneapolis Tribune sees merit in the scheme.'* 3 The 
editor calls attention to the speech of R. N. Stevens (July 22 ) on his 
resolution for a single house, calling it the event of the day, 4 and 
stating that Editor Warnock of the Jamestown Capital, the official 
organ of the Farmers’ Alliance, favors one house. 5 

The resolution favoring a single house was referred on second 
reading to the committee of the whole 6 and it was considered on July 
22 . R. N<. Stevens, in' his speech urging a single house, said : “A 
single house is not an experiment; that great examples are: Athen¬ 
ian democracy, the Phoenician republic, the Swiss Confederation, 
the Kingdoms of Norway, and Sweden of the present day, our own 
congress of the Confederation ; that the cities of New York and 
Chicago are governed bv single councils; that one and only argu¬ 
ment today in favor of the perpetuation of our National Senate is 
the protection it affords to independent sovereignties which compose 
our federal Union. “There is no such argument in favor of a 
senate for North Dakota. Every county is not a sovereignty. The 
members elected to the upper house would vote the same as those to 
the lower house.” 7 

Ezra Turner, in seconding the resolution, spoke in favor of the 
plan: “The English House of Commons is the real governing 
body. The Canadian provinces (except Quebec) have a single house, 
and their legislation stands the tests of the highest courts.” 8 

A. S. Parsons suggested that the one house plan might help solve 
the problem of the trusts. A house of. members directly from the 
people might be less liable to corruption by the trusts. 9 

On the next day John E. Garland spoke against the plan: “It has 
been said that it is a dangerous thing for a nation to forget its past. 

.One house.has been tried and found utterly inadequate.” 

He called attention to the fact that all the American colonies had a 
single house—that Vermont, Pennsylvania, Georgia and South Caro¬ 
lina when they became states all tried a single house, but they 
had all changed, that the articles of federation vested a legislative 
power in a single house and this was a prominent defect, that the 
examples from foreign countries were not to the point, the circum¬ 
stances differ, and there is no check on hasty legislation in a single 
house. 

’Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 30; this was file No. 25. 

-’Mismarck Daily Tribune, June 28 and 30, 1889. 

•Ib., Tuly 10, 1889. 

4 Ib., Tuly 3, 1889. 

■Mb., July 3. 1889. 

“Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 42. 

7 Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 103-108. 

Mb., 108. 

Mb., 110-112. 






STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


35 


M. N. Johnson, in favor of the plan, stated that argument for two 
houses was largely one of precedent. Rome had a single house; also 
Carthage; the National Assembly of France was an example; Nor¬ 
way was prosperous with a single house, and the Canadian provinces 
were examples of prosperous states with a single house. 

W. S. Lauder stated that the burden of proof was on the two- 
liouse advocates, because a single house was simpler and less ex¬ 
pensive ; that the two houses in our national government were not 
a check on each other, but were the legitimate offspring of states 
rights to guard the sovereign power of the states; that the House 
of Lords were representative of a distinct class in the nation; that 
there were no class or interests especially to be guarded or promoted 
in this state, and that the county or integer would elect the total 
number of members with no idea of a check." 

Harvey Harris believed in the survival of the fittest; the states 
of the nation prove the two-house plan the practicable one. 1 

The resolution asking for a single house was reported back with 
the recommendation that it be postponed. 2 A plan for two houses 
was recommended and passed. 3 . File No. 20 introduced July 15, 
included a plan for twenty-eight senatorial districts and thirty-five 
representative districts. 4 The committee's report contained a plan 
for dividing the state into two representative districts, but this plan 
was changed to divide only into senatorial districts, in a report 
made by the committee six days later. 5 * 

On consideration of the matter in committee of the whole an at¬ 
tempt was made to substitute representative districts, and was warm¬ 
ly debated.' 5 Many thought that representatives and senators elected 
from the same districts would make rather an inconsistent plan. 
The Bismarck Tribune said; "A two-house legislature with the 
senatorial and representative districts identical is a roaring farce. 
There would have been more one-house advocates if that had been 
foreseen." 7 Another attempt was made to secure separate repre¬ 
sentative districts after the committee on revision reported, but the 
resolution was lost, 8 and the senatorial district is also the represent¬ 
ative district. There seems to have been very little trouble in agree¬ 
ing upon the legislative apportionment after the single district plan 
was adopted. 0 

A file on amendments to the constitution was presented bv G. H. 
Fay, was recommended by the committee on miscellaneous subjects, 
and with slight changes was adopted as a part of the constitution. 
It provides that an amendment must pass two consecutive legisla- 

1 Abstract of Debates of July 23, Official Rep. of Proc, and Deb., 108-127. 

2 Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 127-8. 

3 Tournal of the Constitutional Convention, 138-9 and 271. 

4 Ib., 27-28. 

3 Ib., 139, 164. 

G Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 323ff. 

"Bismarck Daily Tribune, August 3, 1889. 

s Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 541, 551. 

“Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 202, 327. 






STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


36 


Hires and then receive an affirmative vote from the people to be 
incorporated in the constitution . 1 - 

The committee on Revision and Adjustment was an important 
one, and the members appreciated this. It was felt that this commit¬ 
tee might make the constitution if their powers were not limited. 2 
The committee was made up of five good men. They were frequent¬ 
ly instructed, 3 and at least once severely criticised for reporting back 
an article that was supposed to have been thrown out. 4 Their duty 
was to pick up the remnants of the reports after debates and piece 
them together into a harmonious whole to be considered again m 
the convention for final adoption. On August eighth they were 
given authority to have their report printed so that each member 
could have a copy. 5 - They were given four days in which to bring 
their work into final form, and they made their report on August 13, 
giving a complete constitution out of the reports of the committees 
of the whole. Recommended changes were indicated that each mem¬ 
ber might see what had been done. 6 

From this report the articles were taken up section by section and 
adopted or rejected in part or in whole. The delegates found that 
their own work in committee of the whole was not always satis¬ 
factory on review. The Bismarck Tribune says: “The convention 
yesterday in undoing what it had done the day before performed 
the most commendable day's work of the session. The compelling 
of the supreme court to give opinions when called upon, and the 
legislature to extend but not restrict the right or suffrage was a pair 
of very rediculous propositions. Mr. Williams’ preposterous su¬ 
preme court proposition was knocked out by Judge Garland’s sub¬ 
stitute." 7 

The delegates themselves felt that they were legislating almost 
too much in their work, but some were disposed to legislate rather 
than have their favorite measures defeated. 8 

As fast as the articles were adopted on final vote, they were sent 
to the engrossing clerks. The schedule embraced all necessary pro¬ 
visions to transfer this part of the territory to statehood, and such 
articles were of temporary application in their- nature. It con¬ 
tained the agreement of the Joint Commission on the division of the 
territorial records; made arrangements for the election to adopt the 
constitution and to elect state officers, and provided for the taking 
effect of the constitution. 

The committee on enrolling and engrossing obtained consent to 
make some typographical changes in the copy furnished them and 

'Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 33, 187, 322. 

‘^Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., (speech of Moer), G48. 

"Tournal of the Constitutional Convention, 204, 206; Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 
523, 5.28. 

4 Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 539. 

3 lb., 529. 

°Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 218ff. 

7 The Bismarck Daily Tribune, August 2, 1889. 

-^Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 90, 92, 93, 132, 396. 




STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


37 


in the evening session of Saturday, August 17, brought in the en¬ 
grossed copy. 1 

The motion to adopt the constitution as a whole was carried by 
a viva voce vote, but on the ayes and nays it received forty votes in 
favor of its adoption and twenty-three against its adoption. A mo¬ 
tion to erase the names that the delegates might sign in alphabetical 
order was lost, but the chief clerk was empowered to renumber the 
sections. 2 

Many of the delegates were anxious to get home, and some were 
disappointed with the outcome of their plans and were ready to 
adjourn. A few matters might have been adjusted more satisfac- 
torilv had the convention remained in session a little longer, but this 
would also have afforded the opportunity to undo much that had 
been done. It yet remained to be seen what the people would do with 
their work. 

Closing speches seem always in order in great conventions and 
this one was no exception to the rule. On the day before adjourn¬ 
ment resolutions were passed presenting Mr. Fancher, the president, 
with the chair and gavel. 3 On the last day the president was pre¬ 
sented a framed group picture of the delegates, 4 and the chief clerk 
was the recipient of a beautiful pcture as an appreciation of his 
services. 5 

Later in the evening of Saturday, August 17, the gavel dropped 
for the last time and the convention to frame the organic law of a 
great new commonwealth passed into history. 

LOCATING THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS. 

Both the contest precipitated in the convention and the excitement 
provoked throughout the state by the report of the committee on 
Public Institutions and Buildings justify a separate chapter for its 
consideration. 

But two files on this subject were referred to this committee. One 
of them provided for locating the temporary capital at Bismarck 
and for the submission of the question of permanent capital to the 
voters of the state, forbidding the expenditure of money on capitol 
buildings or grounds until the capital should be permanently lo¬ 
cated. 6 The other file, submitted four days later, contained about 
the same provisions. 7 The Williams constitution had no article on 
public institutions. 

On August 6, the committee submitted a report locating thirteen 
state institutions in character and location substantially as later 
adopted into the constitution. 8 These institutions were: the capitol, 
the state university and school of mines, the agricultural college, two 

Uournal of the Constiutional Convention, 353. 

2 Ib., 399-400. 

3 ib. 337. 

4 Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 648. 

5 Ib., 656. _ , 

®Tournal of the Constitutional Convention, 23. 

7 Tb., 50. 

8 Ib., 190. 






38 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 


state normal schools, a deaf and dumb asylum, a hospital for the 
insane, an institution for the feeble minded, a soldiers’ home, an 
asylum for the blind, an industrial school, a school of forestry and a 
scientific school. 

An attempt was made to take up the consideration of this report 
at the evening' session of the same day, but the motion was lost. 1 On 
the next day it was considered in committee of the whole. A minor¬ 
ity of three had just reported in favor of locating the temporary seat 
of government, submitting the question of the permanent capital to 
the voters, and leaving the location of the public institutions to the 
legislative assembly. 2 

H. F. Miller, the chairman of the committee, moved, “that we 
adopt as a whole the majority report.” David Bartlett (of Griggs) 
offered as the first section of the report the following: “The follow¬ 
ing article shall be submitted to the vote of the people as a separate 
article as provided bv the schedule,” and in explanation made the 
following speech : “The unusual manner in which this question has 
been brought up was unexpected by me. I am well aware that I 
represent the opinion of the minority on this floor this afternoon, 
and as far as I am concerned I bow to the majority. However you 
may have obtained that majority, you have it. Now I ask in behalf 
of at least thirtv members, and T think more, I ask in all fairness 
that you adopt this section, and that this matter be submitted separ¬ 
ately, that the people may have, if they wish to locate these insti¬ 
tutions, that they may have a right to do so. Refuse this section 
and you compel at least thirty members that sit in this convention 
today to refuse to sign your constitution—you compel at least thirty 
who have sat here from the Fourth of July until now, trying to do 
their duty, to go home and say to their people that they have been 
unable to accomplish it, and to ask their people to refuse to endorse 
their work. I don’t believe that this convention can afford to do 
this. Refuse this section—refuse to submit this matter separately, 
and you forever bar all compromise with the minority here, which 
I think is a respectable minority. Refuse it, as I say, and you com¬ 
pel us to take the steps that we here and now state that we do 
not wish to take, and would rather not take. Refuse this, and the 
republicans in this convention endanger the success of the republi¬ 
can party in the new state this fall. You may smile, but it is a fact. 
We know that not only have the votes of the majority been obtained 
by every means known to the power of corporations, by promising 
and farming out so far as that influence could go, every office and 
position on the state ticket this fall—we know that and are satis¬ 
fied of it. Refuse this section, and you compel at least thirtv mem¬ 
bers of this convention to join with any party—to join with anv 
alliance that will forever and forever sit down and permanently sit 


1T ourn^] of the Constitutional Convention, 192. 

2 Ib., 197. 




STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


39 


down on the rule of corporations in this state. Gentlemen, I ask in 
all humanity—I ask, I plead it, that you accept this provision.” 1 

R. M. Pollock followed, stating that the people had not expected 
it * * * “It may endanger the adoption of the constitution.” 

M. N. Johnson said (in part) : “This is an interesting moment, and 
I fear a sad day in the history of North Dakota. * * * The 

people are in no mood to be whipped into voting for this constitu¬ 
tion.” W. E. Purcell called their attention to the fact that they had 
no precedent for such action; that the delegates were not sent there 
to farm out the public institutions of this great state; that four 
prominent cities were candidates for the seat of government but 
they were working as a unit for this measure. He urged the ques¬ 
tion: “Was it an issue in the election of delegates?” He said that 
an address to the people had been ordered to give them the reasons 
why the constitution was framed as it is, and thought that the mover 
of that motion should explain to the people why they are imposed 
upon. He said that men confess that influences have been brought 
to bear which it was impossible to withstand. 

R. N. Stevens gave the reasons for locating the public institu¬ 
tions. They were: To locate the institutions before there was any 
excuse for lobbying, to give the different parts of the state fair 
treatment, Bismarck as the capital would help in building up the 
western portion of the state; the other institutions were located as 
they were because the population of the state demanded it; locations 
were all properly made, located them to keep them out of the hands 
of the lobbyists. 

Richard Bennett in his speech said that the capital was located at 
Bismarck in the interests of the two great railroads of the state, 
and that if necessary be could bring a gentleman to prove it. Tames 
Bell believed that the people had a right to be heard and the dele¬ 
gates who yesterday were afraid to legislate too much would do 
well not to deny to the people the right to vote on matters that concern 
themselves, and stated that the men from Walsh county would not 
go into the dirty scheme. 2 The amendment to submit the article to 
a separate vote of the people was lost by a vote of 31 to 43. 3 

M. N. Johnson at this point created a diversion by moving to 
substitute Jamestown for Bismarck. In his remarks he said: “Now, 
Mr. President, and four or five of the gentlemen living in and near 
Jamestown, it is your ears that I wish to reach. Let me tell you that 
we of the minority are willing now, and we have got the power to 
give you the capital for all time to come in Jamestown. We will 
do it in good faith, and you now take the responsibility of choosing 
whom you will serve. Five votes is enough to do it, and you have 
got it right there.” 4 This amendment was lost by a vote of 19 to 


’Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 478-9. 

2 F.xtrart from speeches in Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 47 8-490 

•’Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 490; Journal, 197. 

4 Ib., 492. 




40 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


50. 1 On final vote this article was adopted (44 to 30) and referred 
to the committee on revision and adjustment. 2 

The next day, August 8 r the convention adjourned to the 13. 
When they reassembled the protests and endorsements in regard to 
locating the institutions began to pour in. The first memorial came 
from Grand Forks and ended by saying: “We believe that the ter¬ 
ritory will prefer that the birth of the new state be indefinitely post¬ 
poned rather than it be born under and by virtue of a constitution 
reeking with jobbery. Grand Forks county has forty-five hundred 
votes, fifty public speakers and $25,000 to assist in maintaining the 
rights of the people and the fair name of the new state. If we can¬ 
not start right we prefer not to start at all.” 3 

Another memorial commending the action of the convention, 
came from Jamestown, congratulating the president upon the lo¬ 
cation of a state institution at that place, and closed with the words: 
“time will prove the wise judgment of her delegates in this selec¬ 
tion.” 4 

Twenty-four other communications about equally divided between 
censure and approval, were read on August 13. 5 On a motion that 
all the communications read be referred to a committee of five to 
be appointed by the chair, the ayes and nays were demanded and 
the votes stood only 40 to 24 in favor of the motion. The chairman 
of the committee on public institutions was appointed chairman of 
this committee of five. 6 On the next day eight more communications 
of approval were read in the convention. 7 On the next day after 
this five more resolutions of censure were presented. Four of these 
were series of resolutions which had been adopted in mass conven¬ 
tions representing the citizens of Hope, Wahpeton, St. Thomas, and 
Grafton. The meeting at Grafton represented Walsh County and 
their resolutions pledged themselves to “use every endeavor to se¬ 
cure the defeat of the constitution at the polls, firmly believing it to 
be the less of two evils.” 8 The next morning five more messages, 
three of approval and two condemning the action were read. One 
of the expressions of approval came from outside the state: 

“Baltimore, Md., Aug. 13, 1889. 

To the President of the Constitutional Convention: 

Capitalists of Baltimore, who have $250,000 invested in North 
Dakota, congratulate you and the members on the good Constitution 
von have prepared and the judicious location of public institutions. 
Regards to Harvey Harris. 

G. Lane Tanehill, 

For the Syndicate.” 9 


Official Report of Proceedings and Debates, 493. 

2 Tournal of the Constitutional Convention, 199. 

s Ib., 208 . 

4 lo., 209. 

5 Tb., 20S-215. 

c Ib., 215-21G. 

7 Ib., 270-1. 

8 Ib., 293. 

u Ib., 271. 




STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


41 


Also the Minneapolis Tribune in an editorial endorsed the action 
of locating the public institutions. 1 

On the last morning another protest was presented, making a 
total of forty-three sent to the convention. 

On the afternoon of August 14 (the second day of the tele¬ 
grams) President Fancher took the floor to repudiate a charge made 
in the Grand Forks Flerald that he had refused to have certain tele¬ 
grams (from Grand Forks) read, and called upon the Grand Forks 
delegate responsible for the charge to correct the statement. It was 
shown bv several members that the chief clerk had attemptd to read 
the telegrams, but had been prevented from doing so by persistent 
motions to adjourn. 2 The president was exonerated by a unanimous 
vote of 71. 

The final consideration of the article to locate the public institu¬ 
tions was reached in the evening session of August 16. A motion 
was made to substitute for it the minority report locating only the 
temporary capital, and another motion was later made to have it sub¬ 
mitted to the voters as a separate article, but both these amendments 
were laid on the table, and with slight change the article was adopt¬ 
ed. 3 Personal feeling still ran high and some sharp speeches were 
made, and the minority maintained a solid front of opposition to the 
last, although they knew they were beaten. While the vote was being 
taken nine members explained their votes that they might not be 
misunderstood. 4 The adoption of the article was fixed by moving to 
reconsider and then laying that motion on the table. 5 * 

On August 17, the last day of the session, the committee of five to 
whom the petitions and remonstrances had been referred made their 
report. Three of the committee made a majority report in which they 
approved the views of those who were opposed to the measure, and 
set forth the reasons why the institutions should not be located by 
the convention. The minority report was signed by the chairman, 
H. F. Miller, and presented the reasons for locating the institutions 
by the convention, showing that the locations were well chosen to 
accommodate the people of the state and that it was for the best 
interests of the state to have them located by the convention. 0 

A motion to dispense with the reading of the reports was lost by 
a vote of 24 to 42. The motion to. adopt the majority report was 
tabled by a vote of 38 to 31, and the minority report was adopted 
by a vote of 41 to 28. 7 


1 Bismarck Daily 

2 Official Rep. of 

3 Journal of the 
bates, G29. 

4 Tb., 333. 

5 Ib., 333. 

c Ib., 340. 

7 Ib., 343-5. 


Tribune of August 13, 1889. 

Proc. and Deb., 548-550. 
Constitutional Convention, 328-333; 


Official Rep. of Proc. and De- 




42 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


THE JOINT COMMISSION FOR THE DIVISION OF TERRITORIAL PROPERTY. 

There was one feature in connection with the constitutional con¬ 
ventions of the Dakotas that was original and unique. No other 
states had entered the Union under circumstances which required 
an equitable division of territorial property. This property belonged 
to all parts of the territory, although the larger number of public 
institutions were in the southern half, because both in population 
and in voting strength in the legislature this part outclassed the 
northern end. 

The Enabling Act provided that the two constitutional conven¬ 
tions should appoint a joint commission to be composed of not less 
than three members of each convention, to meet at Bismarck to 
agree upon an equitable division of the property, the disposition of' 
the public records and the adjustments of the liabilities. The 
agreement reached was to be incorporated in the respective consti¬ 
tutions, and each state was to obligate itself to pay its share of the 

indebtedness. 1 

By resolution it was agreed in the convention that the president 
should appoint seven members to this commission, and E. W. Camp, 
W. E. Purcell, B. F. Spalding, Harvey Harris, Alexander Griggs, 
J. W. Scott, and Andrew Sandager were duly appointed. 2 

The South Dakota convention had already appointed its seven 
members, who arrived in Bismarck, July 13. 

This commission of fourteen members met in the governor’s of¬ 
fice on July 16. For organization it was decided that the chairman¬ 
ship of the commission should alternate from day to day between the 
chairmen of the committees from the two states. Two secretaries, 
one from the membership of each committee, were chosen, and on 
the second day two assistant secretaries, not members of the com- 
mision. It was also agreed that all votes in the commission should 
he taken bv roll-call, and that a majority of the members from each 
state delegation should be necessary for the transaction of all im¬ 
portant business. 3 

An agreement as to the interpretation of the powers of the com¬ 
mission was reached at the first session, and 3 o’clock in the after¬ 
noon was fixed as the regular hour of meeting. The South Dakota 
members urged the eariest convenient completion of the work as 
their convention was awaiting their return to finish its work. 4 The 
commission met the next day at 2:30 p. m. by common consent, and 
on the third day the convention gave permission to its members of 
the commission to sit during the session of the convention. 5 

The commission met continuously from the 16th to the 31st of 
July. On five days two sessions were held and on the last day an 
evening session was necessary to complete the work. 

1 Enabling Act, section 0. 

2 Tournal of the Constitutional Convention, 7, 13. 

JTournal of the Joint Commission, 7. 

+ Official Rep. of Proc. and Deb., 678-9. 

5 Journal'of the Joint Commission, 54. 





STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


43 


The second and third sessions were devoted to an informal dis¬ 
cussion of the amount of investments in the different territorial in¬ 
stitutions in order to reach some conclusions in regard to a just di¬ 
vision. ' It was suggested that each state should take the public 
institutions in its own territory with all the funds and all the in¬ 
debtedness belonging to each institution. 1 The assistant clerks were 
instructed to prepare and present a detailed statement of the amount 
of bonds issued for each public institution. 2 

A committee examined the public records to determine what ' 
records should be transcribed. Another examined the public library 
and reported an estimate of its value. A committee was appointed 
to ascertain the amount and location of the military property, and 
another reported upon the condition and value of any other property 
not hitherto specified. 3 A committee to gather information about 
the claims against the territory reported that they could find none. 4 

The committee on public library recommended that each section of 
the commission submit sealed bids for the library. 5 * The South 
Dakota commission bid $4,000, and received the library, as North 
Dakota's bid was $750°. 

The books and records were divided into two groups, those from 
the offices of the governor and secretary in one, and those of all 
other offices in the other. The privilege of making first choice was 
decided by lot. North Dakota won in the drawing and chose the 
group made up of the books and records of the governor and secre¬ 
tary. 7 The expense of all copies made of the records was to be 
borne equally by the two states. 8 

For the disposition of all other matters except the public records 
it was agreed that the members of the*commission from each state 
should submit a proposition in writing as a basis for settlement. 9 
The two propositions agreed fairly well on public institutions and on 
the division of property not before disposed of. The South Dakota 
plan was to divide the assets and the liabilities between the states 
according to the counties concerned. The North Dakota committee 
asked South Dakota to pay the state of North Dakota $60,000 as a 
settlement of unbalanced accounts and of claims arising out of un¬ 
lawful taxation of Northern Pacific railroad lands in consideration 
of which North Dakota would assume these claims. They also 
claimed the sum of $40,000 due from South Dakota if North Dakota 
assumed the ownership of the capitol, including the claims against 
the territory arising from the acceptance of lands granted for cap¬ 
itol purposes. 10 


Official Rep. of Prc. and Deb., 6S5-6. 

2 Tournal of the Joint Commission, 9. 

3 Lb., 11. 

“Ib., 13. 

°Ib., 13. 

r, Tb., 19. 

7 Ib., 21, and Bismarck Daily Tribune of July 31, 1889. 

8 Agreement of division in Journal of the T oint Commission, 28. 

9 Tournal of the Toint Commission, 13. 

10 lb., 15; Official Rep. of Proe. and Deb., 794-5. 




44 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


This item of unbalanced accounts and of claims for unlawful tax¬ 
ation was not well understood and both the morning and afternoon 
sessions of one day were devoted to its discussion. On the next day 
the chairmen of the two committees were requested to confer and 
report a plan of settlement. 1 The following day a general plan of 
agreement was presented. This rcommended a division of public 
property and the payment of $42,500 from South Dakota to North 
Dakota in settlement of all unbalanced accounts. After some debate 
this was accepted and the chairmen were appointed a committee <to 
draw up a final agreement in accordance with this proposition. 2 

A committee of two, one from each delegation, was appointed to 
prepare an article to be presented (to the respective conventions to be 
inserted in the constitutions they were framing. 3 The final agree¬ 
ment of twenty-four articles covering all the points in question was 
presented and was unanimously adopted. 4 The committee to draft 
an article for the constitutions reported such an article of seven sec¬ 
tions, and a mutual agreement obligating the respective state to 
pay the part of the debts and liabilities as agreed upon in this 
article. This was adopted by unanimous vote, and all members 
signed the articles of agreement. 5 

After some congratulatory speeches the commission adjourned 
subject to the call of the chairman. 6 This call was never made as 
their work was eminently satisfactory to both state conventions. 

By the division of taxes and other moneys North Dakota received 
much more than the amount specifically stated in the foregoing 
agreement. 7 

The article for the constitution was reported to the convention, 
considered in committee of the whole, and adopted without amend¬ 
ment, and became a part of the constitution in article 16. 8 

In the report of the committee of the whole which had con¬ 
sidered this article of adjustment the following recommendation was 
made, and it shows the members’ appreciation of this new feature 
in constitution making: “We further recommend that the short¬ 
hand notes of the proceedings of the said Joint Commission be 
transcribed and printed with the debates of the convention, inas¬ 
much as, so far as the committee is informed, said Joint Commission 
is the first body of it kind ever convened. 9 

Official Rep. of Proc. and Deh., 829; Journal of the Joint Commission, 15. 

2 The amount to be paid was $46,500, but this included the $4,000 for the library. 
Tournal of the T oint Commission, 16. 

3 Ib., 22. 

4 Ib., 28. 

5 Official Rep. of. Proc. and Deb., 932. 

®Ib., 933. 

7 Bismarck Daily Tribune of August 1 , 1889. The Bismarck Tribune says: “By a 
settlement agreed upon by the committees South Dakota pays to North Dakota $46.’o00 
in cash. Added to this may be counted $24,588.42, the excess in proportion of the 
gross earnings tax for 1888 due North Dakota over South Dakota, and $10,000, the 
difference in our favor on unexpended bond balances, and $1,000 for safe and testing 
scales and weights in the treasurer’s office, making a grand total in North Dakota’s 
favor on settlementt of $S2,100.” 

s Tournal of the Constitutional Convention, 202, 386ff. 

°Ib., 203. 




STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


45 


THE COMPLETION OF THE CONVENTION'S WORK. 

The debates of a convention are always serviceable in determining 
the intent of the members. In fixing the pay of the stenographer 
additional compensation was granted in return for a transcribed and 
legible printer’s copy of the notes. 1 A resolution was introduced 
and referred to the committee of the whole to print 500 copies of 
the debates in bound volumes for distribution and exchange. When 
this was reported back the number was changed <to 1,000, and that 
report was adopted. 2 

Another resolution obligated the chief clerk to have the work 
completed and the bound volumes ready within sixty days of the 
close of the convention. 3 Some time after this an amendment was 
adopted to exclude the debates of the committee of the whole. It was 
thought that the expense would be great as several volumes were 
expected. Important debates were occurring in the committee of 
the whole, and a number of delegates wanted the people to know 
what had been done, and to have the benefit of what had been said, 
and wished it all printed if any were to be made public, but the 
majority were willing to save expense. 3 

Near /the close of the session it was learned that the debates 
would make only an ordinary volume, and the original plan of pub¬ 
lishing the complete debates was adopted and 1,000 copies were 
ordered printed 4 

It was voted to publish the constitution in each of the newspapers 
of the state, and an allowance of $10 each for such publication was 
made, to be provided by the legislature at its first session. 5 The last 
section of the schedule provides for the publication of the constitu¬ 
tion and some other historic documents in a book form. An election 
was held on October 1, 1889, at which the constitution was adopted 
by a vote of 27,441 to 8,107. The article on prohibition was submitted 
separately and received a>n affirmative vote of 18,552 to a vote of 17.- 
393 in the negative, or a majority of 1,159. 6 

The constitution was sent to the president of the United States, 
and President Harrison issued a proclamation of admission on 
November 2, 1889. 7 

APPENDIX. 


DELEGATE DISTRICTS, CONSTITUTIONAL CONVEN¬ 
TION OF 1889. 

For the purpose of electing the delegates hereinbefore mentioned 
the following districts have been duly established in pursuance of 

Note: The journal of the Joint Commission was printed as Appendix B of the jour¬ 
nal of the constitutional cnvention. The debates of the commission named, “Journal 
of the Proceedings of the Joint Commission,” were printed as the last part of the De¬ 
bates of the Constitutional Cnvention. 

Hournal of the Constitutional Convention, 26, 53. 

2 Ib., 58. 

3 Ib.. 125; Official Ren. of Proc. and Deb., 134-138. 

4 Ib., 352. 

5 Ib., 126, 340. 

^Legislative Manual of 1909, p. xxx. 

7 Richardson, Mf'essages and Papers of the Presidents, Washington, 1889, IX.. 22-23. 






46 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


law, each of which districts shall elect three delegates to said con¬ 
vention at Bismarck, to form a constitution for the state of North 
Dakota: 

1. The townships of Dayton, Lincoln, Jolliette, Pembina, 
Carlisle, Midland, Hamilton, Bathgate, Neche, St. Joseph, Walhalla 
in the county of Pembina shall constitute the first district. 

2. The townships of Akra, Cavalier, Thmgvalla, Park, Lodema, 
Beaulieu, Gardar, Crystal, Elora, and St. Thomas in the county of 
Pembina, and the townships of Montrose, Alma, and Osnabrock in 
the county of Cavalier shall constitute the second district. 

3. The townships of Olga, Fremont, Loam, Harvey, Hope, Lang- 
don. Linden, Grant school and Cypress, together with all the re¬ 
maining portion of Cavalier county not hereinbefore specified, and 
the counties of Towner and Rolette shall constitute the third dis¬ 
trict. 

4. The counties of Bottineau, McHenry, Ward, Pierce, Church 

and Renville shah constitute the fourth district. * 

5. The counties of Burleigh, McLean, Mercer, Sheridan, Stev¬ 
ens, Garfield, Mountraile, Williams, Dunn, McKenzie, Wallace, Al¬ 
fred, Buford, Flannery, Hettinger and Bowman shall constitute the 
fifth district. 

6. The counties of Morton, Oliver, Stark and Billings shall con¬ 
stitute the sixth district. 

7. The counties of Emmons, Logan, McIntosh, Kidder, Wells, 
and all that portion of the county of LaMoure lying west of the 
west line of range 63 west, shall constitute the seventh district. 

8. The county of Dickey and voting precincts numbered three, 
four, six, seven, eight, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, nineteen and 
twenty in the county of LaMoure shall constitute the eighth district. 

9. The county of Ransom and all the remaining portion of the 
county of LaMoure not included in districts seven and eight above 
described, shall constitute the ninth district. 

10. The county of Sargent and the townships of Ellendale, 
Sheyenne, West End, Dexter and Park, in the county of Richland, 
shall constitute the tenth district. 

11. All the remaining portion of the country of Richland not in¬ 
cluded in the tenth district above described, shall constitute the 
eleventh district. 

12. The city of Fargo and the townships of Fargo, Barnes, Reed 
and Harwood in the county of Cass, shall constitute the twelfth 
district. 

13. The townships of Pleasant, Stanly, Norman, Warren, Maple- 
ton, Raymond, Berlin, Gardner, Wiser, Noble, Kinyon, Elm River. 
Francis, Rush River, Harmony, Casselton in the county of Cass, 
shall constitute the thirteenth district. 

14. All that portion of the county of Cass not contained in the 
twelfth and thirteenth districts as above defined, shall constitute 
the fourteenth district. 




STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


47 


15. The county of Barnes shall constitute the fifteenth district. 

1G. The county of Stutsman shall constitute the sixteenth dis¬ 
trict. 

17. The counties of Benson, Eddy, Foster, and all that portion 
of Griggs county west of the west line of range fifty-nine, shall con¬ 
stitute the seventeenth district. 

18. All that portion of the county of Griggs not 'described in 
said district number seventeen above described, the county of Steele, ; 
and the township of Roseville, including the city of Portland and 
the township of Mayville, including the city of Mayville, in the 
county of Traill, shall constitute the eighteenth district. 

19. All the remaining portion of the county of Traill not de¬ 
scribed in the said district number eighteen, shall constitute the 
nineteenth district. 

20. The city of Grand Forks and the townships of Grand Forks, 
Brenna, Rye, Falconer, Harvey, Ferry, Lakeville, Levant and Turtle 
River, in the county of Grand Forks, shall constitute the twentieth 
district. 

21. The townships of Strabane, Johnstown, Milan, Gilby, Wheat- 
field, Hegton, Mekinock, Blooming, Arvilla, Chester, Oakville, 
Avon, Pleasant View, Fairfield, Washington, Union. Allendale, 
Walle, Michigan, Americus and Bentrue, and the city of Larimore, 
in the county of Grand Forks, shall constitute the twenty-first dis¬ 
trict. 

22. The townships of Elkmount, Inkster, Oakwood, Agnes, Ni¬ 
agara, Elm Grove, Moraine, Larimore, Logan, Grace, Lovetta, 
Lind, and Northwood, in the county of Grand Forks, and the county 
of Nelson shall constitute the twenty-second district. 

23. The county of Ramsey shall constitute the twenty-third 
district. 

24. All that portion of the county of Walsh east of the east 
line of range fifty-four, shall constitute the twenty-fourth district. 

25. All the remaining portion of the county of Walsh, not de¬ 
scribed in the said district number twenty-four, above designated 
shall constitute the twenty-fifth district. 1 

LIST OF DELEGATES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CON¬ 
VENTION OF 1889. 

First District: 

H. L. Holmes, Neche, 

R. B. Richardson, Drayton, 

W. B. Best, Bay Centre. 

Second District: 

Joseph Powles, Milton, 

John McBride, Alma, 

A. F. Appleton, Crystal. 


Published in Bismarck Tribune, official paper of the territory, The Daily Tribune 
of April 16, the Weekly Tribune of April 19, 1889. 




48 


STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 


Third District: 

C. P. Parsons, Rolla, 

P. McHugh, Langdon, 

R. B. Glick, Langdon. 

Fourth District: 

V. B: Noble, Bottineau, 

J. L. Colton, Burlington, 

Ezra Turner, Bottineau. 

Fifth District: • 

E. A. Williams, Bismarck, 
Harvey Harris, Bismarck, 
John E. Garland, Bismarck. 

Sixth District: 

A. W. Hoyt, Mandan, 

A. S. Parsons, Mandan, 

Wm. Ray, Dickinson. 

Seventh District: 

J. B. Gay ton, Hampton. 

G. H. Fay, Ashley, 

C. V. Brown, Sykeston. 

Eighth District: 

W. H. Rowe, Monango, 

A. D. Flemington, Ellendale, 
L. D. Bartlett, Ellendale. 

Ninth District, 

S. H. Moer, La Moure, 

R. N. Stevens, Lisbon, 
Andrew Sandager, Lisbon. 

Tenth District: 

John Shuman, Rutland, 

T. D. McKenzie, Milnor, 

John Powers, Havana. 

Eleventh District: 

W. S. Lauder, Wahpeton, 
Andrew Slotten, Wahpeton, 
W. E. Purcell, Wahpeton. 

Twelfth District: 

H. E. Miller, Fargo, 

B. F. Spalding, Fargo, 

J. Lowell, Fa-rgo. 

Thirteenth District: 

Addison Leach, Davenport, 

R. M. Pollock, Casselton, 

H. M. Peterson. Horace. 



STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 


49 


Fourteenth District: 

E. W. Chaffee, Amenia, 

Wm. J. Clapp, Tower City, 

Enos. Gray, Embden. 

Fifteenth District: 

Elmer Elliott, Sanborn, 

J. W. Scott, Valley City, 

J. Wellwood, Minnie Lake. 
Sixteenth District: 

E. W. Camp, Jamestown, 

F. B. Fancher, Jamestown, 
Andrew Blewett, Jamestown. 

Seventeenth District: 

E. S. Rolfe, Minnewaukan, 

H. M. Clark, New Rockford, 

O. G. Meachem, Carrington. 
Eighteenth District: 

David Bartlett, Cooperstown, 

E. D. Wallace, Hope, 

E. M. Paulson, Mayville. 
Nineteenth District, 

J. F. Selby, Hillsboro, 

M. F. Hegge, Hegge, 

Knud J. Nomland, Caledonia. 
Twentieth District: 

Wm. Budge, Grand Forks, 
Richard Bennett, Grand Forks, 
Alexander Griggs, Grand Forks. 
Twenty-first District: 

A. P. Haugen, Reynolds, 

J. H. Matthews, Larimore, 

Chas. Carothers, Emerado. 
Twenty-second District: 

M. N. Johnson, Lakota, 

M. V. Lin well, North wood, 

T. W. Bean, Michigan City. 
Twenty-third District: 

A. O. Whipple, Devils Lake, 
Edward Lohnes, Devils Lake, 

J. F. O’Brien, Devils Lake. 

Twenty-fourth District, 

A. D. Robertson, Minto, 

M. K. Mar r in an, Grafton, 

James Bell, Minto. 

Twenty-fifth District, 

Roger Allin, Grafton, 

John Almen, Grafton, 
fames Douglas, Park River. 



•V 





4 













t ■ 














L 


0 033 239 154 9 










# 





















